13 X 



4' 



1 kJ 



,0o. 



^0 O 



» v ,0' 



V . 



O0 1 



•0 V c 



.00 



> 



v 



v ^ * * a 



o c 



,0C 



V 



O { 

A • 



REPLY 



TO 



BEING THE 



summing up of the case 



OF 



PROFESSOR MATTISON 



AGAINST 



MRS PALMEE. 



BY J. L PERKY 




Ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the sainta." 

Jxtdb 3. 



NEW-YORK: 

JOHN A GRAY'S SALAMANDER PRINTING-OFFICE, 

16 AND 18 JACOB STREET, N. Y. 

1 8 5 6. 



RESUME 



When my Reply to Professor Mattison's " Calm Keview" was 
finished, it was my intention not to permit myself to be pro- 
voked or tempted to protract the controversy by any thing Prof. 
Mattison might afterwards say. 'Not is it now necessary per- 
haps to depart from that intention ; yet before finally submit- 
ting the whole matter to the decision of the Church and the 
public, it may be expedient to review some parts of the discus- 
sion, and extricate the main question in debate from the smoke 
and confusion in which it has been involved by the introduction 
of collateral issues. 

The Professor has published an 11 Answer' 11 to my "JReply" 
and as he professes to give all the testimony in his possession 
which is relevant to the questions at issue, the case may now 
be summed up. I address myself to this task with great con- 
fidence, fully persuaded that he has signally failed to make out 
the charges preferred by him, and quite certain that this failure 
can be made apparent to every impartial reader. 

Early in December last, the Professor published an article in 
the Christian Advocate and Journal, under the caption, "Believe 
that ye have it, and ye have it ;" in which, after violently 
denouncing the character and writings of Mrs. Palmer, he con- 
cludes by challenging any "good man" to discuss with him 
" calmly and kindly" the following eight propositions : 

"1, Her sanctifications are mere consecrations, or being set apart for God, like the 
consecration of a church, or of a bullock laid upon a Jewish altar. The essential 
change in the purification of the heart by the Holy Spirit is almost wholly ignored. 



4 



" 2. Consequently all feeling and consciousness — all fruits or results as evidences 
of the fact — are repudiated. We must believe it is so because it is assumed that it 
must be so. 

" 3. The faith by which we are to be sanctified is to believe that we are 
sanctified. 

"4. I must publicly profess entire sanctification, or backslide from that state 
of grace ; and the stronger my doubts are, the more strong and decisive must be 
my professions. 

" 5. No minister should preach 'holiness' unless he is himself wholly sanctified. 

" 6. The ministry and membership should be classified into ' sanctified * and ' un- 
sanctified,' and every thing arranged accordingly in the Church. 

" The preaching of God's word, the love-feasts, and prayer and class-meetings 
in the M. E. Church, 'are not for the promotion of holiness;' therefore separate 
meetings must be got up for this purpose, under the auspices of the 'sanctified,' 
even though they lead, as they have done in several instances already, to ruinous 
divisions in the churches. 

" 8. That her entire theory — the ' altar,' the faith, and the sanctification— is 
purely ideal and imaginary — a theory utterly unknown in Methodism, except as 
advocated by George Bell and Maxfield — at variance with the Holy Scriptures, and 
calculated to promote fanaticism, and strife, and division, and every evil work." 

Fully convinced that these propositions were all indefensible, 
and that the last four especially were monstrously defamatorj^, 
I consented to discuss them with the Professor, and inserted in 
the same paper in which they appeared the following notice : 

PROFESSOR MATTISON'S CHALLENGE ACCEPTED. 

Dear Doctor Bond : On the outside of your present issue I observe with regret 
another article from Prof. Mattison under the caption, "Believe that ye have it, and 
ye have it." At the close of his article he states his readiness to sustain eight pro- 
positions, which you will find set forth on your first page. I think myself prepared 
to take the negative of these propositions ; and with your permission I invite the 
Professor to their discussion in your columns. 

After these issues are disposed of, I shall perhaps have something to say respect- 
ing the taste and the gentlemanly and Christian courtesy with which the Professor's 
" onslaughts" on Mrs. Palmer have been hitherto conducted. 

Brooklyn, December 15, 1855. J. H. Perry. 

In a private conversation afterwards with Prof. Mattison, I 
informed him that I had accepted his challenge, and we agreed 
to discuss the propositions in a series of articles in the Advocate 
and Journal, subject, of course, to the consent of Dr. Bond, the 
editor. 

It was also agreed between us, that in discussing the pro- 
positions, each article from Prof. Mattison should be accom- 



5 



panied by an article from me, that the reader might have the 
affirmative and negative arguments before him at the same 
time. To accomplish this, he agreed to furnish his article for 
the outside of the paper, and I pledged myself to prepare a 
reply in season for the inside, which usually goes to press two 
or three days later than the outside. Of course, to redeem this 
pledge, it was necessary that I should be allowed to see each of 
the Professor's articles before the paper containing it was pub- 
lished ; and it was understood that I was at liberty to examine 
the earliest corrected proofs. 

After this full and explicit understanding with the Professor, 
I went to Dr. Bond's office to converse with him on the subject. 
I understood him to consent to our arrangement, and at his 
request I wrote at his table the following note, which after it 
had been read to him was sealed and directed to Prof. M., Dr. 
Bond taking charge of it, and promising to forward it to him : 

" Dear Brother Mattison : I am requested by Dr. Bond to inform you, that he 
agrees to the understanding had between you and myself touching the manner in 
which our discussion shall be conducted. That is to say, that you are to open the 
discussion on the propositions contained in your article, in the paper of this week. 
He wishes me to add, that if the discussion begins in the next number of the 
Advocate and Journal, your article must be at the office on Wednesday morning. 
Truly, etc., J. H. Perry. 

" [ Monday evening, 6 o'clock. 

"P. S.— The time is short, but I hope you may be able to commence this week." 

Shortly afterward I met the Professor, and we called together 
upon Dr. Bond, in whose presence we talked over again all the 
preliminaries of the discussion. These, as finally agreed upon, 
were as follows : 

1. We were to write one article each. 

2. All the eight propositions were to he discussed. 

3. The discussion was to be conducted 11 calmly and kindly" 
and all personal reflections were to he avoided. 

Having thus carefully guarded against the introduction into 
the discussion of any thing offensive to Christian courtesy and 
charity, I supposed a single article, written with an honest and 
prayerful desire to elicit truth on an important but controverted 
topic, might do good. 



6 



PROFESSOR MATTISON'S FIRST ARTICLE. 

On the 3d of January the Professor's article in the Christian 
Advocate and Journal was published. As it was at first intended 
that my reply to it should appear in the same number of the 
paper, I called at the printing office to see an early proof, but 
finding the article not all in type, I asked permission of the 
assistant editor to see the manuscript. While I was reading it 
Prof. Mattison came in, when I told him what I was doing, and 
asked if he had any objection. He replied in the negative, and 
I finished reading the manuscript, with the exception of a part 
which the Professor carried with him into another part of the 
building. Finding that the Professor had allowed himself to 
indulge in a tirade of personal abuse, I sought for him and 
begged him to strike out that part of his article, reminding him 
that it was a violation of our agreement, and could only be 
mischievous in its tendency. But he would not consent to 
omit it, and the article was published entire. The personalities 
made no part of his argument, and they could only have been 
introduced for the purpose of diverting attention from the main 
issue, or gratifying malignant feelings. 

Let us now examine the evidence, and we shall see that the 
warfare of the Professor comes far short of his high-sounding 
proclamation. 

The first proposition which he affirms his ability to prove is 
the following : 

Proposition I. 

u Her sanctifications are mere consecrations, or being set apart for God, like the 
consecration of a church, or of a bullock laid upon a Jewish altar. The essential 
change in tlie purification of tlie heart by the Holy Spirit is almost wholly ignored." 

For a condensed statement of his argument on this proposi- 
tion, the reader is referred to my "Reply" pp. 39, 40; or for 
his argument entire, to the Advocate and Journal of Jan. 3d. 
The reader will also find my analysis and refutation of his argu- 
ment in the Advocate and Journal of Jan. 10th, and in my 
"Reply? See pp. 40-46. 

The careful reader will perceive that the Professor finds it 
much easier to affirm than to prove. After ringing the changes 
on this accusation for five or six years past, long enough per- 



1 



haps to persuade himself of its truth, he rinds himself greatly 
embarrassed when his proof is demanded. Writers upon mental 
and moral philosophy agree in the opinion, that wilful resist- 
ance to the truth, or the obstinate support and defense of error, 
gradually disqualifies the mind to discern mental or moral dis- 
tinctions. I do not mean to affirm my belief that Prof. Matti- 
son on this subject has said or written at any time what he 
believed to be untrue ; but I suppose it quite possible that he 
commenced this warfare under the influence of strong preju- 
dices excited by rumors and reports, before he had carefully 
examined Mrs. Palmer's writings ; and that after he had pub- 
licly committed himself against her, and combated for some 
time in the public prints what he fancied she taught, it became 
an impossibility to convince him that he had misunderstood 
and consequently misrepresented her. Under this species of 
hallucination I think Prof. Mattison labors, in his attempt to 
prove Mrs. Palmer's heterodoxy. How else can we account 
for the fact that so shrewd a man in argument as he is acknow- 
ledged to be, can seriously rely upon shallow sophisms and 
garbled quotations to sustain such grave propositions ? 

His leading argument to sustain his first proposition is, that 
Prof. Mahan recommends one of Mrs. Palmer's books, and 
therefore it must teach New Divinity ! Prof. Mahan, the editor 
of the Oberlin Evangelist, in his column of notices of new pub- 
lications, speaks favorably of Mrs. Palmer's little book, and 
therefore Mrs. Palmer must be heterodox ! The argument is 
utterly worthless. But if the inference of the Professor were 
legitimate, it would be entirely neutralized by an array of 
similar opinions from editors of unquestioned orthodoxy. 
The editor of the Christian Guardian, the organ of Wesleyan 
Methodism ih Canada, says in a notice of the same book, " It 
is only a truism to assert that Mrs. Palmer is eminently Scrip- 
tural and Wesleyan." So also the editors of our Church 
periodicals generally, as well as the two English Wesleyan 
magazines, recommend her books without qualification. The 
Professor has not, I think, impeached the orthodoxy of these 
men, and he must be unreasonable if not satisfied that his 
argument is worthless. 

Let us print the two arguments for convenient comparison, 
and see how they look. Here they are : 



8 



PROFESSOR HATTISON'S ARGUMENT. 

(1.) Prof. Mahan recommends one of Mrs. Palmer's books. 
(2.) But Prof. Mahan teaches New Divinity. 
(3.) Therefore Mrs. Palmer's book is heterodox. 

COUNTER ARGUMENT. 

(1.) Many Methodist editors recommend this book of Mrs. 
Palmer's. 

(2.) These Methodist editors are sound in the faith. 

(3.) Therefore Mrs. Palmer's book is orthodox. 

Having elaborated this argument, the Professor proceeds to 
an examination of Mrs. Palmer's books, in order to show from 
her definitions of holiness that 11 her sanctifications are mere con- 
secrations, or being set apart for God, like the consecration of a church 
or of a bulloch laid upon a Jewish altar. The essential change in 
the purification of the heart by the Holy Spirit is almost wholly 
ignored." 

Most persons would think that the fair and honorable way 
of proving in what terms Mrs. Palmer defines holiness, would 
be to consult the section entitled, " What is Gospel Holiness or 
Sanctification f " inasmuch as that contains her specific and 
professed definition of the word. But passing this by, the 
Professor selects here and there part of a sentence or paragraph, 
and severing it abruptly from its connections, puts it forth as 
Mrs. Palmer's definition of holiness ! What author would be 
safe in such hands ? In this way John Wesley has been made 
to teach Universalism, and the Bible made to sanction slavery 
and every evil work. 

All this I proved in the Reply, pp. 41^46. 

The same method is pursued by the Professor, to show from 
the history of Mrs. Palmer's personal sanctification, that she 
teaches that sanctification is consecration only. This argu- 
ment is refuted and exposed, pp. 44-46 of the "Beply ;" and 
it is there shown that Mrs. Palmer teaches that consecration 
precedes sanctification. The Professor also relies upon what 
he calls " the Jewish altar theory" of Mrs. P. to prove his 
point. To this I replied that Mrs, P. teaches no Jewish altar 
theory, but that her works clearly show that by the word 



9 



" altar" she means Christ, and the very plainest quotations 
from her works to prove this were cited. (Reply, p. 46.) 
Finally, on this proposition the Professor said : " Besides, it 
could be shown, if necessary, that Mrs. P. once called her pas- 
tor, Brother C, to account, and wrote him a very singular let- 
ter (still extant), because he preached that entire consecration 
was not entire sanctiflcation, (as she had taught on page 9 of 
' Entire Devotion.') " This assertion I positively denied, deem- 
ing this the only reply of which it was worthy. 
He then proceeds to the discussion of 

Proposition II. 

" ' Consequently all feeling and consciousness — all fruits or results as evidences 
of the fact [of entire sanctiflcation], are repudiated. We must believe it IS so because 
it is assumed that it must be so.' " 

This proposition the Professor had admitted to be a deduc- 
tion from the first, and as that had been shown to be vision- 
ary, this vanished with it. But his arguments and references, 
so far as they applied to the case, were patiently examined, and 
clearly shown to give no support to the proposition he essayed 
to defend. But I did not stop with a refutation of his argu- 
ments. I showed by various quotations from Mrs. Palmer's 
books, that she believed and taught in accordance with our 
standards, and in direct opposition to what the proposition 
affirms. (See Reply, pp. 46-48.) 

Proposition in. 

. " The faith by which we are to be sanctified is to believe that we are sanctified." 

The Professor's support of this proposition is very brief and 
feeble, while my reply is full and complete. I show not only 
that his proof fails to support the proposition, but that the pro- 
position itself is repudiated in the very words by which the 
Professor explains it, by Mrs. Palmer herself. (See Reply, p. 
49.) Indeed he has denounced the sentiment, "Believe that 
ye have it, and ye have it," less emphatically than Mrs. P. has. 

Proposition IY. 

11 1 must publicly profess entire sanctification, or backslide from that state of grace; 
and the stronger my doubts are, the more strong and decisive must be my professions." 

The Professor assumes the first part of this proposition, say- 



10 



ing that Dr. Mitchel fully admits, and that I will not deny it. 
He then affirms that Bishop Hedding was not a professor, and 
then cites some passages from Mrs. Palmer's books, none of 
which can be tortured into his service. The last part of the 
proposition he attempts to dodge, but in so clumsy a manner 
that his manoeuvre is visible to every one. His proposition 
charges Mrs. Palmer with teaching, " The stronger my doubts 
are (of my sanctiflcation), the more strong and decisive must be 
my professions ;" but when he comes to discuss it, he coolly 
says : " The more lam tempted to doubt my sanctiflcation, the 
stronger I must profess it;" and then proceeds to discuss this 
new proposition. This "dodge" is exposed in my Reply, p. 51. 
It is shown moreover on pages 50 and 51 that Mrs. Palmer's 
views on this point are identical with those of Mr. Fletcher and 
Mr. "Wesley. She nowhere teaches that sanctiflcation must ne- 
cessarily he professed before "promiscuous assemblies" or "ungod- 
ly persons ;" a reference to her works, and to the very passages 
quoted by the Professor, shows this conclusively. 

At this point the Professor stops in the discussion (he dis- 
likes the phrase breaks down), and occupies nearly a column of 
the paper with what he calls " concluding compliments to Dr. 
Perry." These " compliments" make no part of the discussion, 
and could have been thrown in for no other purpose than to 
raise a prejudice against the doctrines he opposed by injuring 
and ridiculing his opponent. 

Foreseeing the evil consequences that must arise from the 
opening of a personal quarrel, I begged the Professor to omit 
these remarks, as I have before stated ; but he refused, evi- 
dently considering them the best part of his performance. In 
my reply, I felt greatly inclined to leave these " compliments" 
unnoticed, but finally concluded to make a clean breast of it, 
and state my plain reasons for accepting his challenge. These 
reasons proved very distasteful to the Professor, and the pub- 
lication of my article threw him into a fever of excitement. 
Brimful of wrath, he encountered me at the Book Koom, and 
calling me aside, informed me that I had injured his ministerial 
reputation, and must retract. I reminded him of my predic- 
tion that his personal "compliments" to me would lead to 
trouble, when I requested their suppression, but he could not 



11 



see that he had given any occasion for complaint on my part. 
I then inquired in what he considered himself injured, and he 
replied that I had accused him, among other things, of haviug 
misquoted and garbled quotations from Mrs. Palmer's books, 
and this he wished me to. retract. To this I answered that I 
had not intended to impeach his ministerial character, and was 
willing to say so, if it would relieve the case, but that I could 
retract nothing. I had not only made the allegation, but what 
was worse, had proved it to be true, and ; of course, could recall 
nothing I had said. The Professor then threatened to bring a 
complaint against me before my Presiding Elder, and sue me 
in a court of law. At the fulmination of these empty threats 3 
I pleasantly told him our interview had better terminate, or be 
continued in the presence of witnesses. Thereupon we went 
into the office of the agents, where the conversation was re- 
newed in the presence of several preachers. Here Professor 
Mattison first said, as he has repeated since in his Answer to my 
Reply, that I had told him it was my intention to impeach his 
integrity. This I at once denied, making at the same time the 
following statement : "I believe, Professor Mattison, you have 
stated what is not true, but I do not in this statement design 
to impeach your veracity. It may be that you did not design 
to state an untruth. I am inclined to attribute it to an infir- 
mity in your character." These are about the words that 
were employed. Professor Mattison then asked: "Are you 
willing to leave the matter to three brethren ?" I replied : 
" There is nothing to leave to them." At about this moment, 
a brother privately suggested to me that I had better be on my 
guard, that the Professor was only striving to entrap me, or 
prepare a case for publication, and that it would be prudent to 
decline submitting the case to any one. After considerable 
conversation, however, Dr. Whedon wrote the note that was 
afterwards published, and Professor Mattison and myself ac- 
cepted it, as a satisfactory settlement of our personal misunder- 
standing. Again I supposed the matter was at an end ; what 
then was my surprise to see in the same paper in which the 
note of settlement was published, a notice of the forthcoming 
of Professor Mattison's " Calm Review /" 

In this Eeview, notwithstanding his expressed wish to dis- 



12 



cuss the subject " calmly and kindly," and his positive pledge 
to avoid all personalities, he again indulges in bitter and offen- 
sive remarks, and directly contradicts my statements on many 
points. Among other things he affirms — 

1. That he had obtained a retraction from me of something 
I had said in my article in the Advocate, 

2. That though he was included in the note of " disavowal," 
this was done, not because he retracted any thing, but through 
his magnanimity, and in order to save me from the mortifica- 
tion of making an individual retraction. 

3. That this note was no settlement of our difficulties, but 
that this idea was an after-thought of my own. 

4. He reaffirms the truth of his statement, that "Mrs. 
Palmer once called her pastor brother Creagh to account, and 
wrote him a very singular letter, because he preached (in the 
Allen street pulpit) that entire consecration was not entire 
sanctification." 

Here is what he says on this subject : 

"ETowI am sorry to be obliged to say, in self-defense, but in fiat contradiction of 
Dr. Perry's denial, that there is truth in this story. 

"1. It was notorious in the Allen street Church at the time. 

" 2. For some cause, Dr. and Mrs. Palmer called for their certificates just then, 
and left the Allen street Church. 

" 3. Brother Creagh told me that such was the fact. 

"4. Brother Creagh read the letter to several persons, two of whom still live 
in this city, and will make affidavit to the fact. One is an elder in the M. E. 
Church. 

" 5. I have five letters in my possession, signed ' Phebe Palmer,' that abundantly 
prove my assertion (See Appendix B.)" 

5. He affirms that these letters show his assertion to be true, 
but that he is restrained from publishing them by a sense of 
honor. 

6. Carried away by the excitement of the controversy, he 
affirms, " Neither Wesley, Watson, Benson, Clarhe, Asbury, Fish, 
Olin, nor any of our deceased bishops, ever professed entire sancti- 
fication, so far as appears" 

7. He not only denies peremptorily that he agreed to discuss 
his eight propositions in a single article, but says, I " knew he 
had not intended to attempt it from the first." 

8. He denies with equal positiveness that he agreed to dis- 
cuss the subject " calmly and kindly," and avoid all personali- 



13 



ties, affirming that he " never made any such agreement, or 
heard of it until he saw it in your (my) article. He should 
have felt himself insulted by any such proposal." 

9. He again denies that he has ever assaulted Mrs. Palmer. 
" He only replies to her repeated attacks." 

10. He denies that the editors of our periodicals had refused 
to insert his articles on the subject of Mrs. Palmer's orthodoxy, 
and declares my intimation to this effect to be " all moon- 
shine," and he specially refers to the Northern Advocate as one 
paper in which he was at full liberty to continue the contro- 
versy at his pleasure. 

He makes other points of minor importance, to some of 
which we may refer, but he still makes no attempt to support 
his four abandoned propositions, nor does he retract or with- 
draw them. 

To this Calm Review of the Professor I published a Reply, 
showing by the testimony of all the parties who were present 
at our interview — 

1. That I made no retraction whatever. 

2. That the " editorial" note was not a joint affair to relieve 
me from the embarrassment of a personal retraction. 

3. That the " editorial" note was sl treaty of peace, accepted 
and agreed to by both parties, as a final adjustment of all per- 
sonal difficulties between the Professor and myself. (See Reply, 
pp. 4 and 5.) 

4. With regard to the Professor's charge, that " Mrs. Palmer 
once called her pastor, brother Creagh, to account, and wrote 
him a very singular letter (still extant), because he preached 
that entire consecration was not entire sanctification," and in 
reply to the evidence furnished to prove it, I said the Professor 
had given yet nothing more than his own affirmation. I also 
published two letters from brother Creagh to Dr. and Mrs. Pal- 
mer, one dated before, and the other after those cited by Prof. 
Mattison, to show by circumstantial evidence, first, the impro- 
bability of the charge that brother Creagh had in the interval 
been deeply wounded and injured by Mrs. Palmer; and secondly, 
that if any thing of a similar nature had occurred, it must have 
taken place in a very brief period and left no ill consequences 
behind it. Moreover, I published a statement from Mrs. Creagh, 



14 



showing that the sermons on sanctification referred to by Prof. 
Mattison were preached by brother Creagh after Dr. and Mrs. 
Palmer left the Allen street Church, and were not heard by 
them, and that nothing was contained in the letters in Prof. 
Mattison's hands to show that Mrs. Palmer had at any time 
• censured or found fault with brother Creagh, for any sentiments 
preached by him in the Allen street pulpit. 

5. In answer to his transparent pretense, that " the seal of 
honor" prevents his publishing the letters, that he might show 
where the truth lies, it is intimated, not indirectly, that it is 
sheer absurdity to affect to be restrained by honor from pub- 
lishing the letters, after publicly and repeatedly stating their 
pretended contents, and endeavoring to manufacture evidence 
out of them to convict another of a grave offense. It is admit- 
ted, however, in my Beply, that a slight alienation of feeling 
did occur between brother Creagh and Dr. and Mrs. Palmer, 
at the time of their removal from the Allen street Church, and 
the belief is expressed that if any letter in Prof. Mattison's 
hands, written by Mrs. Palmer to brother Creagh, does not 
breathe the very kindest spirit of Christian friendship, it refers 
to this, and not to any difference between them respecting the 
doctrine of holiness. {Beply, p. 17.) 

6. To refute the Professor's allegation, that " neither Wesley, 
"Watson, Benson, Clarke, Asbury, Fisk, 01in 5 nor any of our 
deceased bishops ever professed entire sanctification so far as 
appears," authentic extracts from their own writings, or from 
those of their biographers, were given, and the charge was 
shown to be without foundation. (See Beply, pp. 18-24.) 

7 and 8. I show by the statement of Dr. Bond, that the Pro- 
fessor agreed to discuss in his article in the " Christian Advocate" 
all his eight propositions, and to do it " calmly and kindly," 
and avoid all personalities. (See Beply, pp. 26 and 27.) 

9. In reply to his denial that he has assaulted Mrs. Palmer, 
I cited seven different numbers of the Northern Advocate, in 
one of which I enumerated fourteen different offensive charges 
against her, and eight different numbers of the Christian Ad- 
vocate and Journal, in which he had made severe direct as- 
saults upon her, misrepresenting and holding her up before the 
Church and the public to ridicule and condemnation. 



15 



10. The reader will observe that for the statement that bro- 
ther Hosmer had been compelled to refuse the insertion of his 
articles on Mrs. Palmer and her theology, I cited the authority 
of an editorial in the Northern Advocate, and the language of 
Prof. M. himself, who says in writing to the editor, " 1 had 
supposed, from certain circumstances that had come to my 
knowledge, that the subject of Mrs. Palmer's teachings and 
theology was definitely excluded from your columns ; and es- 
pecially all articles of a controversial and personal character." 
(See Reply, p. 35.) 

Such was the manner in which the controversy had been 
conducted thus far, and such the success with which the Pro- 
fessor had supported his celebrated u eight propositions." This 
then must be the verdict up to this point : four of his proposi- 
tions he has signally failed to support, and four he has totally 
abandoned. 

"ANSWER" TO THE REPLY. 

Finding himself in this awkward and unenviable position, 
the Professor is constrained again to enter the lists and make 
another desperate effort to redeem himself from discomfiture 
and irreparable disgrace. He does this in a rambling pamph- 
let of ninety-six octavo pages, in which he lashes out in so wild 
and unguarded a manner, as to convince every observer that 
he has lost the command of his judgment. I propose, with 
perfect coolness and self-possession, to trace him in his tortuous 
windings, to point out his errors, expose his assumptions, and 
refute his arguments. I shall do this more in sorrow than in 
anger, for though I lament the necessity of speaking at all, I 
shall speak with no feeling of unkindness in my heart. 

" INTRODUCTORY." 

On the first page of his introductory remarks, Professor Mat- 
tison gives us a good definition of sanctification, profession and 
all— just such a definition as I can cordially subscribe to, and 
just such a definition as is given in fact throughout Mrs. Pal- 
mer's works. Nay, he makes in some sort a profession of holi- 
ness himself, and from this vantage-ground he essays an an- 
swer to my Reply. Under the influence of this " degree of 



16 



holiness, though it may be small," (I use the Professor's words,) 
he forgets that in all he has written, he " only replies to Mrs. 
Palmer's repeated attacks," and now assigns as his reason for 
assailing her, a desire " to stay the plague of error and do my 
(his) duty to God and his Church." 

He attempts to give a recital of the history of the present 
controversy, beginning with his article of November last, 
which he is " free to admit" was " too severe" — " unnecessa- 
rily severe;" and then, as though no longer under the influence 
of a " degree of holiness, though it may be small," he relapses 
into his old habit, and speaks like himself in the following 
language : 

" (1) Dr. Palmer wrote a reply, signing it £ Equity,' and dating it ' Brooklyn,' to 
mislead me and the p\ blic as to its authorship. I rejoined to the reply as coming 
from Dr. Mitchel, to whom it was generally attributed. Dr. Perry then took up the 
matter, and accepted my so-called ' challenge,' stating that he should go into per- 
sonal matters, (2) and should discuss my 'taste,' and 'gentlemanly and Christian 
courtesy.'(3) I agreed to discuss the points at issue with him in a series of articles, 
and, finally, so many of them as I could in a single article, (4) and wrote accord- 
ingly ; whereupon Dr. Perry comes out with a long article accusing me of dishonesty 
and falsehood in numerous instances."(5) 

In this brief paragraph there are at least five misstatements, 
namely : 

(1) Dr. Palmer did not write the reply signed " Equity," 
and hence he made no attempt to mislead the public as to its 
authorship by signing it Brooklyn. 

(2) Dr. Perry, in accepting the " so-called challenge," did not 
state " that he should go into personal matters." Nothing of 
this kind appears. 

(3) Nor did Dr. Perry state that he "should discuss my 
(Prof. M.'s) taste, and gentlemanly and Christian courtesy." 

The Professor refers to my note of Dec. 15th, accepting his 
challenge. It is in the following words : 

"Dear Dr. Bond : On the outside of your present issue, I observe with regret 
another article from Professor Mattison, under the caption, 'Believe that ye have it, 
and ye have it.' At the close of his article, he states his readiness to sustain eight 
propositions, which you will find set forth on your first page. I think myself pre- 
pared to take the negative of these propositions, and with your permission, I invite 
the Professor to their discussion in your columns. 

"After these issues are disposed of, I shall, perhaps, have something to say re- 



I 



17 



specting the taste and the gentlemanly and Christian courtesy with which the 
Professor's ' onslaughts' on Mrs. Palmer have hitherto been conducted. 

"J. H. Perry 

"Brooklyn, Dec. 15, 1855." 

As the Professor relies upon this note to prove that I was 
the first to indulge in personalities, it may be well to analyze it. 
The last paragraph is the offensive part ; let us examine it. 

It will be seen, (1.) that it does not say that I shall "go into 
personal matters" — there are no similar words in the note. 
(2.) The discussion of the taste and gentlemanly and Christian 
courtesy of his " onslaughts" (his own word) is deferred until 
the discussion on his propositions is finished — " after these issues 
are disposed of," etc. — and even then it is doubtful. "Per- 
haps" it is said, that is, it may be ; " after these issues are dis- 
posed of, perhaps I shall have something to say," etc. 

But however this may be, after the publication of this note, 
we entered into a specific agreement that all personalities should 
be avoided in the discussion.* 

(4) The Professor distinctly agreed to discuss them all.f 

(5) My article does not contain a single accusation of dishonesty 
or falsehood against the Professor. If there is one imputation 
of this character in it, it is an inevitable logical conclusion, or 
an inference deduced from indisputable facts. 

The Professor begins to think this controversy " has come to 
be a serious matter." It was sport for him, during five or six 
years, to accuse a pious and devoted woman of heterodoxy, of 
being a follower of Bell and Maxfield, of teaching a theory 
utterly at variance with the Holy Scriptures, and calculated to 
promote fanaticism, and strife, and division, and every evil 
work, with pitching battle with a bishop, and assaulting gene- 
rally unoffending preachers; but when his proof for these 
charges is demanded, and he is accused of misrepresentation, 
the matter becomes serious ! His reputation he thinks is in 
danger, and, says the Professor, " my reputation is every thing 
to me." Yes, truly, but 

"He that is respectless in his courses, 
Oft sells his reputation at cheap market 1" 

Is the Professor's reputation any dearer to him than Mrs. Pal- 

* Refers to Dr. B.'s note. f See statement of Dr. Bond. 

2 



18 



mer's is to her? But the Professor is "the father of a large 
family" of children ! Has not Mrs. Palmer children, too, to 
whom their mother's reputation is dear ? 

But, says our Professor, " a deep-laid scheme was devised to 
convict me of falsehood!" "If Dr. Perry is right, I am bankrupt 
in honor and veracity, and ought at once to be deposed from 
the ministry, and excluded from the Church of Grod !" 

u Ah ! me, what perils do environ 
The man who meddles with cold iron." 

The Professor is assailed, and accused, and aspersed, and 
impeached, and in every way he is a well-abused man. All 
this well-feigned indignation is designed to conceal the facts. 
Let us inquire what they are. There are only three principal 
points on which he feels particularly sensitive, and on each of 
these he was himself the party to make the issue and commence 
the assault, while 1 have simply answered hack. 1. He gratuitously 
affirmed that I had made a retraction of something I had 
written in my article in the Advocate, and that the joint note 
which he called a " retraction" was made mutual to save me 
from mortification, and not because he was required to retract 
any thing. He again, before I said anything on the subject, 
volunteered to place himself in an antagonistic position on an 
issue of truth, saying that I claimed the "joint note" to be a 
settlement, when it was no such thing, adding that this idea 
was an afterthought of my own. See preface to Calm ^Review. 

Thus impeached, my simple remedy was to call the wit- 
nesses. Was this a deep-laid scheme to convict him of false- 
hood? "Was it my duty to submit to the impeachment in 
silence, because the Professor was " the father of a large family," 
and his reputation might be damaged by the reply ? I had 
not yet learned that either ministers or the fathers of large fam- 
ilies had any special privileges in this regard. 

2. Again, in my article in the Advocate, I stated that in the 
discussion Prof. Mattison had abandoned one half of the pro- 
positions, and that he had agreed to avoid all personalities in 
his article. I stated the first fact as a reason for discussing 
them all myself, and the second as an apology for entering upon 
a discussion that led to offensive personalities. In his "Calm 



19 



Review" pp. 20 and 25, lie makes an issue on these points, 
and positively affirms that I knew they were not true when I made 
the statement. Was I bound to keep silence under this im- 
peachment, because the impugner of my veracity was a minister 
and "the father of a large family" ? I judged otherwise, and 
simply gave the certificate of Dr. Bond, who was acquainted 
with the circumstances, to vindicate my statement. And this 
is a deep-laid scheme, devised to convict the Professor of false- 
hood ! 

3. The Professor had said, in trying to prove that Mrs. Pal- 
mer's sanctification was merely consecration: "Besides, it could 
be shown, if necessary, that Mrs. Palmer once called her pastor, 
brother Creagh, to account, and wrote him a very singular 
letter (still extant), because he preached that entire consecration 
was not entire sanctification, (as she had taught on page 9 of 
'Entire Devotion.')" 

Understanding from Mrs. Palmer that this statement was a 
sheer fabrication, I stated in reply to it, " there is no truth in this 
story." In his Review he re-affirmed his story, but still without 
proof, whereupon I gave in my Reply such negative testimony 
as was in my possession, to show the improbability of his state- 
ment; and this is another part of a " deep-laid scheme, devised 
to convict him of falsehood !" The position assumed by the 
Professor is about this : Because he is a minister and " the father 
of a large family," he has a charter to accuse others of falsehood 
and make any charges he pleases against them, and his accusa- 
tions must not be replied to, nor his statements contradicted, 
lest the ministerial character or the patriarchal reputation be 
sullied. " Eight or wrong," he says, he will vindicate these, 
while his " right hand can hold a pen, or he has a dollar to 
pay for printing !" This ruse is like the cry of " stop thief," 
raised by the pickpocket to divert pursuit from himself. 

The Professor's terrible persecutions, with his graphic de- 
scription of himself in patriarchal attitude, surrounded by his 
large family, suggests the remembrance of the picture of John 
Kogers with his wife and nine small children, etc., on their 
way to Smithfield, in the days of the martyrs. He will not, 
however, submit so meekly to martyrdom ; " No ! while this 
right hand can hold a pen, and I have a dollar to pay for pr int- 



20 



ing (sad descent), I will defend myself !" Like Macbeth he cries 
out, 

"I'll fight, till from my bones the flesh be hack'd — 
Give me my armor I" 

And he will not always be content to act on the defensive. 
Oh, no ! after a while our much-abused friend will carry the 
war into Africa. If the attack upon him is renewed, he can 
answer ten or twenty pamphlets with great composure and 
cheerfulness. Poor man ! he led the onset and means to close 
the dispute, " not because he wants the last word, but because 
no printed aspersion should be left to be read hereafter, without 
a printed reply." Suppose I assume the same position, when 
shall this controversy end ? There may be those who deem 
him victor who speaks last, but wise men know that the last 
word is the word that lasts longest. 

The first question discussed by the Professor in his 11 An- 
swer" is: 

" DID DR. PERRY MAKE A RETRACTION ?" 

Not satisfied entirely with his encounter in the Advocate, 
the Professor complained and wished me to retract something 
I had there said. This I peremptorily refused to do, but pity- 
ing his unfortunate position, and believing, as I informed him 
at the time, that he labored under some mental or moral in- 
firmity that disqualified him to perceive clearly mental or 
moral distinctions, I was willing to disclaim any intention of 
impeaching his Christian or ministerial character, provided he 
would meet me on that ground, and first make the same dis- 
claimer. Though at first he had peremptorily demanded a re- 
traction, a taking back of something I had said, he finally pro- 
fessed to be satisfied with the note published, and adopted it as 
a final adjustment of the personal misunderstanding between 
us. As he had been the aggressor, I could do nothing, even by 
way of explanation, until he led the way. But when this was 
done I cheerfully responded, though warned that the Professor 
would make an improper use of the paper. 

This friendly adjustment (and it purported to be friendly) 
the Professor seized upon, and to the surprise of all parties 
who were present, except one, paraded it the next week in his 



21 



Calm Review as a retraction by me, representing it to be " a 
joint affair," not because be was required to be a party to it, 
but because be magnanimously consented to be included to 
save me from mortification ! He further affirmed that the note 
was not a settlement, as I bad reminded him, but that he was 
at full liberty to discuss the personal issues between us after 
its adoption. 

His statement looked to me like a studied attempt to deceive 
and misrepresent, and calling upon the brethren who were 
present to give their recollection of the circumstances, I re- 
ceived the following testimony, which I printed in my Reply : 

No. L— Rev. Wm. H. Norms. 

"Having been requested by Dr. Perry to give my recollection of the circum- 
stances connected with the short article in relation to him and Brother Mattison, 
which appeared editorially in the Christian Advocate and Journal of January 24th, 
I state that I was present and heard the conversation which resulted in its adoption. 
Dr. Perry made no retraction, nor did I understand the note to be a joint affair to 
relieve him from the embarrassment of a personal retraction. I understood it to 
be simply a peace measure, finally to settle the difficulty between the parties. 

" W. H. Norris, 

11 Fed. 8th, 1856. Pastor Forsyth street Church." 

No. H— Rev. G. Taylor. 

il Having been present when the conversation above referred to by Brother 
Norris took place, I subscribe to what he says about it. George Tatlor, 

11 Pastor Twenty-seventh street Churchy 

No. IH.— Rev. L. H. King. 

" I was present during the greater part of the conversation above referred to, 
and my recollection agrees with that of Brothers Norris and Taylor. 

"L. H.King, 
11 Pastor JDuane street Church." 

No. IV.— Rev. Dr. "Whedon. 

" Being also present on the occasion alluded to, I would state (at the request of 
Dr. Perry) that I did understand that the ? short article' was intended to withdraw 
from the language of previous publications all injurious meaning, whatever might 
have been either writer's original purpose in the language he adopted. I under- 
stood it to be a final adjustment of the personal part of the matter. 

" D. D. Whedon, 
" Pastor Methodist Episcopal Church, Jamaica." 

This testimony shows this state of facts : 
1. I made no retraction. 



22 



2. The editorial note was not understood to be a joint affair 
to relieve me from the embarrassment of a personal retraction. 

3. It was understood that it settled the personal difficulty 
between myself and Professor Mattison. 

Let it be remembered that this exposure was occasioned by 
the Professor's own imprudence in attempting to take advan- 
tage of my generosity. Thoroughly discomfited, he flounders 
like a horse in boggy ground ; but his struggles to relieve him- 
self only sink him deeper in the mire. He admits, in language 
that I should have hesitated to use, the terrible conclusion : 
" Now if there is no further light upon this subject — if this is 
the whole truth — I am absolutely convicted of falsehood." 

After a page and a half of special pleading, on pages 9, 10, 
and 11, in which there are certainly four, and probably five, 
erroneous statements, the Professor recalls and cross-examines 
the witnesses. Before giving the substance of the cross-exam- 
ination, I will point out the errors to which I refer : they are 
probably unintentional, as the Professor was at the time under 
great exercise of mind. 

1. " He told me (says the Professor) that he did intend to im- 
peach my integrity." On the contrary, I told him I did not 
intend to impeach his integrity. 

2. Again he says : " I did not require him to retract any 
specific statement." My first answer to his demand for a retrac- 
tion was: "In what have I misrepresented you?" His reply 
was : " You have charged me with mutilating quotations from 
Mrs. Palmer's works, and with altering the punctuation, etc. ; 
and this you must retract." I answered : " I have not only 
charged this, but have proved it, and I can consequently retract 
nothing." 

3. "I next (says the Professor) asked several brethren to re- 
main in the Agent's office a moment, stepped out, and invited 
Dr. Perry in with us." The first part of this statement I doubt ; 
the last I am certain is incorrect. 

4. Again he says : " I forbore to call the editorial note a 
retraction." In the preface to his 11 Calm Review" and in the 
very passage of which I complain, he says : "It was allowed to 
be a joint affair, not that Dr. Perry's integrity had been im- 
peached by any thing I had written, but to relieve him some- 



23 



what from the embarrassment of a personal retraction. But 
since the Doctor has learned that he was to be reviewed, he 
claims that the retraction was a settlement in full," etc. (The 
Italics are mine.) Brother Taylor says " retract," but the Pro- 
fessor avoids calling it so, 1 1 to save Dr. Perry's feelings ! " These 
are small matters, but no man knows better than Professor M. 
how to give complexion to what he writes by small means. 

Now, let us hear what the witnesses say when recalled by 
the Professor : 

No. I.— Rev. George Taylor. 

" Brother Mattison wishes me to write him the facts that occurred at the confer- 
ence between him and Dr. Perry as far as I can recollect them. 

"I was one of the parties called together by Brother Mattison for the purpose of 
hearing the account of the differences between these two persons. Brother Mat- 
tison stated that he considered that Brother Perry had injured his character by 
misrepresentations in the Christian Advocate and Journal, and that he wished him 
to retract them, or publish a note explanatory of them, so that it should free him 
from all personal imputations. Dr. Perry did not consent to this while I was pre- 
sent, and then Brother Mattison wished Dr. Perry to leave it to Dr. Whedon, 
"W. H. Norris, and myself, as a committee, to say what Dr. Perry ought to do in 
the case. Dr. Perry did not consent to this while I was present. I did not re- 
main till the interview terminated. George Taylor, 

11 March 1, 1856. Pastor Twenty-seventh street Church.' 1 

No. II.— Bey. Dr. Whedon. 

" New-York, March 3, 1856. 
" The undersigned, at the request of Professor Mattison, states that the editorial 
joint note, published in the Advocate, in regard to personal matters between them, 
was adopted in consequence of earnest complaint made by Professor Mattison in 
regard to the personalities used by Dr. Perry ; that Dr. Perry reluctantly assented 
to doing any thing in the premises ; that Professor Mattison proposed to refer it to 
two or three persons, to which Dr. Perry, after some, objection, yielded ; and that 
finally Dr. Perry agreed to the adoption and publication of the note, upon Professor 
Mattison being included in the matter of withdrawal of imputation as well as 
himself D. D. .Whedon, 

" Pastor of the M. E. Church, Jamaica." 

No. III.— Rev. W. H. Norris. 

" New-York, March 3, 1856. 

" Rev. Professor Mattison : 

"Dear Brother: In compliance with your request to state some facts in the 
case, I reply that, on your invitation, I was present at an interview between your- 
self and Dr. Perry, had, as I supposed, to settle certain personal difficulties, growing 
out of articles published in the Advocate and Journal You claimed to be ag- 



24 



grieved and sought satisfaction. After a free and full conversation in our presence, 
the settlement -was made by the mutual acceptance of the note prepared by Dr. 
Whedon, and since published in the Advocate as editorial. Tours fraternally, 

" W. H. Norms, 
"Pastor of Forsyth street if. E. Church, New- York." 

8b. IT.— Rev. L. H. Ke?g. 

M This is to certify that I was not present at the first part of the interview referred 
to in Dr. Perry's 1 Reply' to Professor Mattison's ' Calm Review.' L. H. King, 

" Pastor of the Duane street M. E. Church, New- York. 
"New-Tobx, March 1, 1856." 

Will the reader do me the faTor to refer, first, to the direct 
testimony of these witnesses on page 21, and decide whether it 
sustains these three statements. He will see that they are made 
in the Tery words of the witnesses. 

1. " Dr. Perry made no retraction." 

2. It was not understood "to be a joint affair to relieTe him 
from the embarrassment of a personal retraction." 

3. It was understood to be "a peace measure, finally to set- 
tle the difficulty between the parties." 

The testimony of the first three witnesses is identical. Dr. 
Whedon agrees with them in the statement that the note was 
a final adjustment of the personal part of the matter ; and he 
further states that both parties were understood by him to dis- 
claim (not retract), all injurious meaning in what they had 
written. These witnesses will all agree, further, that this was 
my position when the conTersation commenced, that I expressly 
said I had not intended to impeach the Teracity of Professor 
Mattison. 

Does the cross-examination shake this testimony ? Not at 
all. The three points are plainly stated ; and they are not, so 
far as I can see, modified in the slightest degree by the last cer- 
tificates. I hope the reader will examine the testimony care- 
fully, in Tiew of the serious issue made by the Professor himself, 
and give him the advantage of any doubt that may be suggested. 

If I were pressed for material, or wished to raise a dust, I 
might comment on the enormity of the Professor's conduct in 
publishing certificates after they had been recalled ; but I am 
not yet reduced to this extremity. One, however, if not more, 
of his published certificates, he was requested by the signer not 



25 



to publish ; but his reply was, that it was too late, that it was 
already stereotyped — though he might perhaps have suppressed 
it, as it was not yet " published all over the country." 

But, says the Professor, in dismissing this embarrassing point, 
ci We both retracted" and I should congratulate him upon pro- 
gress in the right direction, but for the spirit of empty bravado 
with which he adds, "Dr. Perry, because he was obliged to do 
it or do worse ; and myself, because I could cheerfully admit 
that I had intended no wrong to him, and was willing to spare 
him as far as possible from all unnecessary humiliation." 
Magnanimous Professor ! Where he and myself are both 
known, it is perhaps hardly necessary that I should attempt to 
describe the degree of awe in which I stand of his vigor and 
prowess ; and among his friends, especially, I shall be thought 
exceeding rash, when I recall, as I hereby do, any "retraction" 
he or they may fancy I have made, and seriously and calmly 
reaffirm all that I have written upon this subject. 

My Presiding Elder will be glad to see him. The New- York 
East Conference meets at Bridgeport, and Caesar's judgment-seat 
is at hand. Let him make his election, and try the dread arbitra- 
ment of war. He may meet with better success than he has done 
in controversy, and victory may perch upon his banner ; for 

" At land and sea, in many a doubtful fight, 

Was never known a more adventurous knight, 
Who oftener drew his sword, and always for the right." 

THE PROFESSOR'S STULTIFICATION. 
" After great lights must be great shadows."— Dryden. 

The Professor attempts "to throw "a ray of light" upon this 
subject ; but he only succeeds in making darkness visible. He 
gropes amid the darkness, but only confounds himself. His 
appeal to charity disarms us, and we charitably omit further 
comment. 

" DR. PERRY'S CONCESSION TO THE PROFESSOR." 
" He is not blind, but he winks."— TUlotson. 

The Professor blinks my examination of his logical curiosity, 
affecting to think it unworthy of notice. This is his stereo- 



26 



typed method of putting aside a nut which he finds too hard 
for him to crack. With respect to my concession, he says : 

" Dr. Perry wishes the credit of having made a concession in regard to his mis- 
quotations — a point upon which he unjustly charged me with changing punctuation 
to pervert the meaning of quotations, of 'garbling,' etc. But to what does this 
concession amount ?" 

To nothing at all. The charge itself was nothing, amounting 
only to an error on the part of the printer, in including perhaps 
a half dozen of Prof. Mattison's words in quotations, which 
purported to be from Mrs. Palmer's book ; but it made no 
change in any case in the meaning, and the Professor himself 
admitted it to be a very small matter. But now the charge 
assumes a graver form. I am now charged repeatedly with 
having accused Prof. Mattison with "changing punctuation to 
pervert the meaning of quotations," etc. But this trick is too 
transparent to pass without detection. I charged, and proved, 
that Prof. Mattison had changed the punctuation and garbled 
quotations from Mrs. P. in such a manner as quite perverted 
the meaning ; but I did not accuse him of doing it for that pur- 
pose. I did not assume to determine his intention, or even that 
it was done intentionally at all. Prof. Mattison is the man to 
divine and proclaim the motives of an opponent. The allega- 
tion that I had quoted " parts of sentences only, putting a period 
where there was only a comma," is idle and frivolous. I have 
not changed the meaning of a word or sentence in quoting from 
Mrs. Palmer or Prof. Mattison. Nor have I attempted to prac- 
tise such a guerilla warfare. I leave such a system of attack 
and defense entirely to Professor Mattison. 

THE JEWISH ALTAR THEORY. 
" Shallow artifice begets suspicion." — Congreve. 

In his article in the Advocate, Professor Mattison said : " Mrs. 
Palmer's sanctifications are mere consecrations, like the conse- 
cration of a church, or offerings laid upon a Jewish altar." In 
reply, I observe : 

" The 1 Jewish altar theory' of Mrs. Palmer, as the Professor 
calls it, is peculiarly distasteful to him. This, he thinks, proves 
conclusively that Mrs. Palmer's sanctification is mere consecra- 



27 



tion. "We have not space to mention all his quotations ; nor 
is it necessary. He gives us some nine extracts from her dif- 
ferent works, in which she speaks of ' laying all upon the altar, 7 
« coming to this altar,' etc. Now, not one of the passages he 
quotes refers to a Jewish altar, and not one intelligent reader 
of Mrs. P.'s books ever for a moment believed it did. Prof. 
Mattison does not believe it."— Reply, p. 46. 

In his " Calm Review" the Professor speaks with some degree 
of indignation of my expressed doubt as to whether he believed 
his own statement. Eead what he says : 

"Dr. Perry assures us that in her favorite 'altar' theory, Mrs. Palmer has no 
reference whatever to any Jewish altar. Indeed, he politely informs me that I 
know that she does not. To this I answer, that I know not to what other altar she 
can refer. True Christians have no sacrificial altars. Their Great Sacrifice, being 
1 once offered ' for sin, has passed into the heavens ; and if we are to be sanctified 
by being laid upon any altar, it must be a Jewish altar ; for of such only did Christ 
say, ' The altar sanctifieth the gift.' I reassert, therefore, (and Dr. Perry has not 
disproved it,) that the ever-recurring figure throughout Mrs. P.'s works, and in all 
her labors, by which she illustrates the process of entire sanctification, is that of a 
Jewish ' altar,' the offerings upon which are sanctified by being laid upon it." 

Here, it will be perceived, the Professor slily, and, as he pro- 
bably supposes, adroitly changes the issue. His first charge is, 
"Her sanctiflcations are mere consecrations, like the consecra- 
tion of a church, or offerings laid upon a Jewish altar and 
he quotes nine extracts from her works to prove this. I reply, 
not one of the passages he quotes refers to a Jewish altar. Now, 
says the Professor in his Calm Review: "Dr. Perry assures us 
that in her favorite altar theory Mrs. Palmer has no reference 
whatever to any Jewish altar." Oh, no ! this is not what Dr. 
Perry assured him. He was simply assured that not one of his 
quotations refers to a Jewish altar. The Professor at first gravely 
affirms, and attempts to prove, that Mrs. P. teaches that "sanc- 
tification is a mere consecration, like the consecration of a 
church, or offerings laid upon a Jewish altar." Now, the ab- 
surdity of this charge will appear, if it be remembered that the 
consecrator of a church does not consecrate himself but the 
edifice ; and the offerer at a Jewish altar does not place himself 
upon the altar, but his gift. In this way Abraham was about 
to offer up his son Isaac ; but does Mrs. Palmer teach that 
Christians are thus consecrated to God, in order to be sanctified? 



28 



Moses said, " Consecrate yourselves to Grod did tie mean, lay 
yourselves upon the altar of sacrifice ? 

Pressed by the absurdity of his accusation, the Professor 
attempts to escape by slily insinuating a modification in its 
terms, and now " reasserts . . . that the ever -recurring figure 
throughout Mrs. P.'s works, and in all her labors, by which 
she illustrates the process of entire sanctification, is that of 
a Jewish altar," etc. {Calm Review, p. 16.) This change 
greatly mitigates the severity of his original charge, and as it 
now stands, it simply implies that the Professor dislikes the 
" figure" of speech by which she illustrates " the process of en- 
tire sanctification." The charge grows " small by degrees, and 
beautifully less," as we proceed, and as he finally dismisses it, 
it has diminished to the innocent proportions of " a Scripture 
allusion to a Jewish altar." This makes it quite harmless : I 
suppose Mrs. Palmer may "illustrate the process of entire 
sanctification" by " a Scripture allusion to a Jewish altar" with- 
out being therefore accounted heterodox. 

"DID MRS. PALMER ASSAIL REV. B. CREAGH ?" 
"To try things oft, and never to give over, doth "wonders." — Bacon. 

On the relations of brother Creagh and Mrs. Palmer, the 
Professor has occupied twenty -one octavo pages ) and he has done 
what he could completely to mystify the whole subject. After 
reading all that he has said with great care, the first impression 
made upon my mind is, that Mrs. Palmer will hereafter pray 
more fervently than ever, with David—" Deliver me not over 
unto the will of mine enemies," etc. 

It is my, purpose to set this whole matter in a clear and 
truthful light, and may my right arm shrink palsied from its 
socket, if I write one word which I shall be unwilling to meet 
at the judgment. Will those who love truth read with care, 
and decide impartially? I shall "nothing extenuate, nor set 
down aught in malice." 

The question to be decided is this : 

Did Mrs. Palmer once call her pastor, brother Creagh, 
to account, and write him a very singular letter, be- 
cause he preached that entire consecration is not 

ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION? etc. 



29 



In his article in the Advocate, in which he made his abortive 
effort to sustain his celebrated eight propositions, in trying to 
prove that Mrs. Palmer's sanctiflcation is mere consecration, 
he said : 

" Besides, it could be shown, if necessary, that Mrs. Palmer once 
called her pastor, brother Creagh, to account, and wrote him a very 
singular letter {still extant), because he preached that entire conse- 
oration was not entire sanctiflcation, (as she had taught on page 9 th 
of 'Entire Devotion. 1 )" 

I put this passage in Italics to mark its importance, as it 
shows the origin of this side issue, and who is responsible for 
the introduction of brother Creagh's name into this controver- 
sy. When I saw this statement, I doubted its accuracy, and 
upon inquiring about it of Mrs. P., was assured it was un- 
founded ; whereupon I said, in my answer in the Advocate : 

" It is somewhat humiliating to refer to the absurd gossip of the Professor about 
Mrs. Palmer's writing a letter to her pastor, ' calling him to account because he 
preached that entire consecration was not entire sanctificaUon. 1 There is no truth in 
this story." 

When Professor Mattison stated in the Advocate "that it 
could be shown, if necessary, that Mrs. Palmer once called her 
pastor, brother Creagh, to account, and wrote him a very singular 
letter (still extant), because he preached that entire consecration 
was not entire sanctiflcation," he probably believed the statement 
true. He had perhaps been told so, by some injudicious, gos- 
sipping friend, and swift to believe without good evidence, he 
incautiously made the affirmation in print. The reply, " Tliere 
is no truth in this story" startled him, and he judged it necessary 
to seek evidence to support the truth of his accusation. The 
better course generally is to know whereof you affirm, before 
positively committing yourself in print, and probably by this 
time the Professor is of this opinion. Having, however, made 
the charge, and been positively contradicted, he commences a 
pilgrimage in search of proof. His first visit seems very natu- 
rally to have been to Mrs. Creagh, for if such a letter was ex- 
tant, as he had affirmed, or if Mrs. Palmer had ever written 
such a one to brother Creagh, she was doubtless acquainted with 
that fact. Let it be remembered the Professor affirmed in 
print, that the letter had been written, and was still extant. 



30 



Will it be offensive to ask whether, when he visited Mrs. 
Creagh, he had any evidence of the truth of his statement ? It 
would seem that he had not. Mrs. Creagh says (p. 21, Answer 
to Dr. Perry's Reply) : "The following are the facts: Professor 
Mattison stated when he first called upon me, that he had been 
contradicted as to certain letters said to have been sent by Mrs. 
Palmer to my husband, and inquired of me whether or not 
Mrs. Palmer had written any letters to Mr. Creagh." 

Let the reader look at this statement carefully, and compare 
it with Professor Mattison's charge in the Advocate. Then he 
said she had written a letter ) calling brother Creagh to account, 
because he preached in opposition to her views on the doctrine 
of sanctification. Afterward, he says to Mrs. Creagh: " I have 
been contradicted as to certain letters said to have been sent by 
Mrs. Palmer" to brother Creagh, "and he inquired whether or 
not Mrs. Palmer had written any letters to Mr. Creagh." Does 
there seem to have been any want of care in making this state- 
ment at first ? Did he write like a man conscientiously careful 
not to backbite with his tongue, or take up a reproach against 
his neighbor ? 

Mrs. Creagh, it appears, supplied him with five letters, and 
we shall presently see what use he makes of them. 

It will be remembered that in answer to the Professor's accu- 
sation, that Mrs. Palmer had written an offensive letter to 
brother Creagh, calling him to account because he preached 
that consecration was not entire sanctification, I had said, 
; * There is no truth in this story." Now, if the five letters ob- 
tained from Mrs. Creagh did not sustain his charge, what is the 
Professor's duty, when he comes to write his " Calm Review" f 
Should he persist in his statement, or qualify, or retract it ? 
It seems to me that truth required him to say in substance : 
" 1 may be mistaken ; I have heard that this is true, but I can 
find no proof of it." Sinner as I am, I think this will be my 
course, if by possibility I ever become equally oblivious of the 
rules of sound morality, or regardless of the proprieties of 
social life, and place myself in a similar position. 

But having obtained the five letters, the Professor sits down 
and deliberately writes the following reply to my denial of his 
charge that Mrs. Palmer had censured Brother Creagh in writ- 



31 



ing, because lie preached in opposition to her views of sanctifi- 
cation. Hear what he says : 

" Now I am sorry to be obliged to say, in self-defense, but in flat contradiction of 
Dr. Perry's denial, that there is truth in this story. 

" 1. It was notorious in the Allen-street Church at the time. 

" 2. For some cause, Dr. and Mrs. Palmer called for their certificates just then, 
and left the Allen-street Church. 

" 3. Brother Creagh told me that such was the fact. 

" 4. Brother Creagh read the letter to several persons, two of whom still live in 
this city, and will make affidavit to the fact. One is an elder in the M. E. Church. 

" 5. I have five letters in my possession, signed 'Phebe Palmer,' that abundantly 
prove my assertion. (See Appendix B.)" 

These five letters signed Phebe Palmer that the Professor 
says "abundantly prove my assertion," are the letters obtained 
from Mrs. Creagh. His "Appendix B" referred to above reads 
as follows. The last paragraph only refers particularly to the 
letters : 

"APPENDIX B. 

"ATTACK UPON THE LATE REV. BARTHOLOMEW CREAGH, OF THE NEW-YORK 

CONFERENCE. 

" For the information of readers at a distance, it may be proper to say, that 
Brother Creagh was not only a close thinker and a sound theologian, but one of the 
purest-minded and holiest men that ever filled a Methodist pulpit in New- York. 
He was, emphatically, ' a good minister of J esus Christ.' 

" When he was stationed in the Seventh-street Church, in this city, I had the 
happiness to make his acquaintance, and preached for him some two weeks in an 
extra meeting. During that time he informed me, that when stationed in Allen 
street, not long before, he had preached a series of discourses on experimental 
religion; that when he came to preach upon entire sanctification, Mrs. Palmer 
called him to account, in writing, for his teachings ; and, finally, for reasons to 
which I need not allude, both Dr. and Mrs. Palmer called for their certificates, left 
Allen street, and went to the Norfolk-street Church. Soon after, as I understood 
Brother Creagh, Mrs. P. wrote him several other letters, implicating him very se- 
verely, etc. He was deeply grieved and wounded. Indeed, careful and mild as he 
always was, he told me that he had never had his feelings so injured by any church- 
member as by Mrs. P. in those letters. This was about the first I knew of Mrs. 
Palmer. My first impressions of her and her theory were obtained of her pastor, 
Bev. B. Creagh. 

"These facts were no secret. Brother C. read the letters to Bev. Brother H. and 
Brother M. together, and they were talked of in Methodist circles all over the city. 
To throw dust in the eyes of some, however, Mrs. P. still eulogized Brother C. as 
having been sanctified under her labors! (This is the case referred to by 'Owe who 
does not profess sanctification,' in a recent Advocate.) But the truth is, that Brother 
Creagh never was 'sanctified' through Mrs. P.'s labors, unless it was as St. Paul 
was sanctified by his 'thorn in the flesh.' I know that he cordially disliked both 



32 



her theory and her tactics, from first to last, and had no fellowship or sympathy 
with either. 

" But as to the letters, respecting which Mrs. Palmer instructed Dr. Perry to say. 
'There is no truth in this story, ' I have five of them before me, signed ' Phehe Palmer. ' 
and only wish the seal of honor was removed, that I might show the public where 
the truth lies. They are dated, respectively, Jan. 5, 1847 ; Oct. 13, 1848 ; Oct 27. 
1848 ; Nov. 1, 1848, and March 4, 1849." 

This is all the proof the Professor gives in his Calm Review 
" that there is truth in this story." 

In answer to the above statements taken from the Calm 
Review, it was said in my " Eeply :" 

u These five witnesses may, or may not prove the truth of this story. Let us 
call them to the stand, and see what they will say. 

" No. 1 is not a competent witness. A rumor, if we should charitably admit that 
it did exist, could prove nothing. No. 2 is put in for effect, with the purpose, ap- 
parently, of saying by innuendo what the writer dared not venture to affirm 
directly. No. 3, 1 Brother Creagh told me so,' will not pass ; we know something 
about the Professor's memory. No. 4 will answer when the 1 elder 1 and the other 
' person' have made the affidavit in a satisfactory manner. But the Professor's they 
'-will make affidavit to the fact, 1 is what the Turks call losh — nothing. No. 5, 'I 
have five letters in my possession, signed " Phebe Palmer," that abundantly prove 
my assertion, (see Appendix B,)' threatens to be a troublesome customer. Now, 
said I, when this witness was announced with such a flourish, now we shall have 
it Let us look at Appendix B.' " See above. 

"There you have it, kind reader — the whole five witnesses, with Appendix B;' 
and what progress is made in proving that ' there is truth in this story' 1 ? Why, 
positively none at all. "We have nothing more yet than Professor Mattison's asser- 
tion. True, his first story is slightly enlarged ; there was originally one letter, now 
we have five. But why does he not give us the proof? He asserted this thing in 
his article in the Advocate, and I denied it. The next step is surely the production 
of proof, if he has any to give. Yet he simply contradicts and re-affirms, like a 
brawling woman." — Reply, pp. 12, 13. 

Finding the Professor much more disposed to give his version 
of the contents of the letters than to publish the letters them- 
selves, I proceeded to make out a negative case, and printed two 
letters* from Brother Creagh and a statement from his widow. 
The Professor had given the dates of the letters in his posses- 
sion, which abundantly proved as he said that Mrs. Palmer had 
attacked Brother Creagh for preaching that consecration is not 
sanctiflcation, and terribly lacerated his feelings ; and one of the 
letters I printed was dated in the interval between the first and 



* See "Reply," pp. 15, 16. 



33 



last of his, and when, if his statement is true, the battle may be 
supposed to have been hottest, and the other later than his last, 
when the war may be supposed to have been at an end, and 
when the parties might be expected calmly to have reviewed 
the ground. Yet in both these letters we find unmistakable 
expressions of affection and Christian regard, and in the latter, 
after the terrible infliction had passed away, we find Brother 
Creagh reviewing the past and expressing in the warmest 
terms his "pleasing sense of obligation imposed by manifold 
kindnesses" and affirming that his heart "shall love to cherish 
in memory's seat the friendship and fellowship of by-gone 
days." It seemed to me that this testimony completely swept 
away the Professor's report of the deep griefs and incurable 
wounds he had received in the alleged conflict. 

I then gave the following extract from a statement made by 
Mrs. Creagh, the widow of the late Brother Creagh : 

"STATEMENT. 

" Brooklyn, February 14, 1856. 

"A few days since Rev. Mr. Mattison called upon me, and requested me to fur- 
nish him with any letters from Mrs. Palmer to my late husband which I might find 
among his papers. I was reluctant to do this without the consent of Mrs. Palmer, 
and I expressed this reluctance to Mr. M. ; but I was finally persuaded to place in 
his hands such letters and notes of Mrs. P. as I could readily find. 

" There was nothing contained in the letters I gave him to show that Mrs. P. 
had at any time censured or found fault with my husband, for any sentiments 
preached by him in the Allen-street pulpit.. My husband's series of discourses on 
entire sanctification, referred to in Mr. Mattison's review, were delivered some time 
after Dr. and Mrs. Palmer had removed their membership to the Norfolk-street 
Church, and they were not heard by them, and consequently, could not have been 
made the occasion of their removal from the Allen-street Church. 

" Signed, etc." 

This directly annihilated the Professor's statement, that the 
five letters he had received from Mrs. Creagh abundantly proved 
his assertion, that Mrs. Palmer had written a very singular letter 
to Brother Creagh calling him to account because he preached 
that entire consecration was not entire sanctification. 

As I had copies of letters addressed by Mrs. Palmer to 
brother Creagh, of the same dates with those cited by the Pro- 
fessor, and had Mrs. Palmer's assurance that she had written 
none that could justify his statement, I felt tolerably certain of 
3 



34 



that whereof I affirmed. And I therefore stated that the Pro- 
fessor might have a letter from Mrs. P. to brother C, which 
contained some expressions of dissatisfaction, but if so, it 
related to the removal of Dr. and Mrs. Palmer from the Allen 
street Church, and not to any difference between them, arising 
from brother Creagh's preaching on the subject of sanctifica- 
tion. 

This conclusive defense brought out the Professor's "Answer 
to Dr. Perry's Eeply," in which he labors through ninety-six 
octavo pages to neutralize its force, and save himself from 
shame. His main object is to weaken the defense, by attempt- 
ing to show that the statement of Mrs. Creagh was improperly 
obtained, that it misrepresented her views, and was published 
against her wishes. The examination of these points, with 
other irrelevant matter, will be discussed in another place. Let 
us now inquire how the Professor succeeds in showing that Mrs 
Palmer wrote an offensive letter to brother Creagh, censuring 
him for opposing her views of sanctification. Let us at 
present keep close to this point. "We shall not lose sight of 
the others. The first five of the twenty-one pages devoted to 
this point, are occupied with 'Appendix B," the two letters of 
brother Creagh, copied from my "Reply" pp. 15 and 16, the 
statement of Mrs. Creagh, and some irrelevant matter ; then 
comes his first attempt at proof, in the shape of what is called 

"A Genuine 'Statement' from Mrs. Creagh, with a Signature. 

" Brooexyn, March 3, 1856. 

" Having recently been shown a printed paper, purporting to be a statement of 
facts given by me to Mrs. Phebe Palmer, and finding it to be a strong misrepre- 
sentation of what has transpired, I feel it to be my duty to voluntarily correct its 
misstatements, and to give the facts as they actually occurred. 

" In the paper referred to I am represented as saying that, 'A few days since, 
Rev. Mr. Mattison called upon me, and requested me to furnish him with any letters 
from Mrs. Palmer to my late husband which I might find among his papers. I was 
reluctant to do this without the consent of Mrs. Palmer, and I expressed this re- 
luctance to Mr. M. ; but I was finally persuaded to place in his hands such letters 
and notes of Mrs. P. as I could readily find.' The following are the facts : Pro- 
fessor Mattison stated, when he first called upon me, that he had been contradicted 
as to certain letters said to have been sent by Mrs. Palmer to my husband, and in- 
quired of me whether or not Mrs. P. had written any letters to Mr. Creagh. I re- 
plied that there had been several. He then said he would like, if it was proper, to 
see them. I told him I saw no impropriety in his having the letters, but that I 
should not like them to be used without Mrs. P.'s consent. Professor M. then told 



35 



me that he did not want them for publication, and that he would not make any 
such use of them without the consent of both Mrs. Palmer and myself. I then 
stated that I would look over Mr. Creagh's papers, and see what I could find, and 
would send them by brother H. next Tuesday. On looking, I found the five letters 
referred to, and when brother H. called I sent them to Professor Mattison. So far 
from brother M.'s manner being urgent or unchristian, I thought that it was re- 
markably kind and gentlemanly, and so stated to Mrs. Palmer at the time she called 
upon me. 

" Professor Mattison is represented as using persuasion to prevail upon me to 
let him have the letters ; but, so far from this, I did not feel any hesitation, after 
his statement, to let him have them. There was no persuasion used at any 
time. 

" In reference to the 1 statement' published as mine, its history is as follows : On 
the 13th of February, Doctor and Mrs. Palmer called on me, and, after talking with 
me, showed me a paper which they brought with them, and requested me to sign 
it. Mrs. P. earnestly urged me to do so, as she said it was necessary to the defense 
of my late husband, and that it was my duty to do so, as there were letters which, 
if she should publish them, would impeach Mr. Creagh. Dr. Palmer then read the 
paper. I told him that I could not sign it unless he erased some of the sentences 
he had read. He then erased them with a pencil, and I signed it. I distinctly re- 
collect that some of the sentences the Doctor erased, or said he would erase, are 
the same as are now published. 

" The next day I called upon a friend, to whom I related what had transpired, 
and who asked me if I had a copy of what I had signed. I told him no ; and it 
then occurred to me that I ought to have had one. I immediately went over to 
Mrs. P.'s for the purpose of getting one. I found Dr. and Mrs. P. at home. I told 
Mrs. P. my errand, and while we were talking, the Doctor left the room. I in- 
quired of Mrs. P. if the Doctor was going out. She said he was, and that he was 
going to take the paper to Dr. Perry's. I desired her to call him back, but he had 
gone too far. 

" When I found that the paper was going to be printed, I objected to it with 
great decision, and Mrs. P. assured me that she would send Dr. Perry a note next 
morning, and that it should be as I desired. 

"In a subsequent conversation with Mrs. P. she informed me that Dr. Palmer 
did not take the paper to Dr. Perry on the day I first called. 

"As to giving Dr. Perry any permission to use the paper, it is enough to say that 
I have not seen his face for years, and in every way have done all that it was in 
my power to do to prevent its publication. I have called upon Mrs. P. twice to ob- 
tain a copy of the paper with its erasures, and to protest against its publication ; 
and in all this I have acted without any correspondence with Professor M. I had 
not seen or heard from him between the time of his calling upon me for the letters, 
and my calling upon Mrs. P. for the purpose of obtaining a copy, and preventing 
its publication. 

" It may be well for me also to state, that in all my conversations with Mrs. P. 
she never asked my permission to publish the letters of my husband, contained in 
the pamphlet of Dr. Perry ; but she did say that it was wrong in me to give Pro- 
fessor Mattison hers; and that she wished me to remove the seal of honor I had 
imposed upon Professor M. ; for she would rather that they should be published 
than that there should be surmises as to their contents. 

" Eliza A. Creagh." 



36 



The reader will perceive that on the question, " Did Mrs. 
Palmer write the objectionable letter to brother Creagh, calling 
him to account for preaching that entire consecration is not 
entire sanctincation ?" this letter speaks not one word. It may 
therefore be dismissed for the present. 

This statement occupies a page and a half, and is followed 
by eight pages of comments by the Professor, which I suppose 
he will not pretend are even in the nature of testimony on the 
main issue. 

We now proceed to examine the next witness, called by the 
Professor to prove the point, " that Mrs. Palmer wrote brother 
Creagh a very singular letter, calling him to account for teach- 
ing that consecration is not entire sanctincation." 

PROFESSOR MATTISON TAKES THE STAND. 
M Be patient towards all men." — Paul. 

If the establishment of the Professor's charge depended upon 
his own testimony, the defense might be abandoned as hopeless. 
Of all his witnesses he is the only one that " faces the music." 
Lawyers dislike a too-willing witness, but having shown the 
imperfection of his memory, I may dismiss him without a cross- 
examination. Professor Mattison may stand aside for the 
present ; he has shown during the discussion that he deserves 
no forbearance, but respect for the ministry induces me to pity 
and spare him. 

II— Rev. Richard Hatter. 
" Light thickens."— Shaks. 

11 During the time when brother Creagh was stationed in Allen-street M. E. 
Church, it was, I think, on a Sabbath evening, after service in the Church, when 
brother C. invited me, with some other brethren, into his house, hinting that he had 
something to communicate. The brethren consisted, I think, of brothers Samuel 
Halstead, G-odine, and, I am positive, brother H. Moore. After we were seated in 
the front parlor, brother Creagh presented one or more letters, which he read, 
the reading of which took up much time. At intervals brother C. paused, and gave 
expression to deep concern and grief, such as he only in his peculiar way could, 
for I was very intimate with his manner. After the reading of the letters, there 
was an interchange of mutual surprise and condolence 'with our beloved pastor. 

" Recently the above circumstance was brought afresh to my recollection by 
an allusion to a letter sent to brother C. by Mrs. Palmer in an article by Rev. H. 
Mattison, which appeared not long since in the Christian Advocate and Journal: 
and on noticing Dr. Perry's denial that such a thing ever transpired as letters being 



37 

sent by sister P. to brother C. touching a difference of opinion existing between 
them, I was greatly surprised, and felt at once that my old friend and brother, Dr. 
P., had by some means been misled, and that, by looking into a diary which I had 
been in the habit of keeping for some years, I might find some record corroborative 
of the fact of letters being sent, and also of my hearing their contents. The search 
was made, and the result is as follows. The record is dated Nov. 27, 1848, and 
reads as follows : 

" 1 My mind has passed through a very painful conflict in relation to two of my 
most choice friends, one a beloved minister, and the other a beloved, and I have 
good reason to believe, a holy sister in the Lord ; and yet, what has come to my 
knowledge has, in some measure, weakened confidence in the latter. There is in 
her letters a dictatorial spirit uncalled for, and insinuations with regard to my dear 
brother 0. that are unwarrantable. I believe one is as much in favor of holiness 
as the other. Now both of these I greatly esteem, but when I heard the letters 
read I knew not what to think ; and I can only find relief in the reflection that 
poor human nature is unalterably the same in all persons ; that grace does not de- 
stroy a certain element in our nature, called by some, ' the love of self, the pride of 
opinion, ' etc., and this is undoubtedly right that it should be so. But all shadow even 
of unholy reflection should be avoided ; this tends to weaken confidence and to de- 
stroy affection,' etc. 

" Note. — The word insinuations which I used, I am positive refers to an impres- 
sion made upon my mind by the language used in the letter, which accused brother 
C. of opposing the work of holiness, and that it was this which so greatly wounded 
the feelings of brother C. ; hence I use the phrase, ' one is as much in favor of holi- 
ness as the other.' My only apology for the above statement is, that truth might 
be vindicated. So far as I know, there is not, between me and the parties above 
mentioned, the slightest difference of Christian affection. 

Richard Hatter, 

' : New-York, Feb. 28, 1856. City Missionary, Twentieth Ward" 

Does this prove "that Mrs. Palmer once called her pastor 
brother Creagh to account, and wrote him a very singular 
letter (still extant), because he preached that entire consecra- 
tion was not entire sanctification (as she had taught on page 9th 
of Entire Devotion") ? Let the reader examine it carefully and 
decide. Before making any comments on Bro. Hayter's state- 
ment, I wish to say that I have the highest confidence in his 
integrity. Upon a simple question of fact, I would rely as 
confidently upon his testimony as upon the evidence of my 
own senses. Yet I hope he will pardon me for expressing a 
doubt whether the " City Missionary of the Twentieth Ward" 
receives a salary from the Tract Society of another denomina- 
tion for the purpose of spending his time in fishing for, or 
manufacturing testimony to damage the reputation of a promi- 
nent member of the M. E. Church, and one whom he says he 



38 



had " good reason to believe a holy sister in the Lord." This, 
however, is a question of taste, about which I will not dispute. 

The statement was undoubtedly written by Brother Hayter, 
as it bears internal marks of authenticity. The note at the 
end was probably appended at the request of Prof. Mattison, 
or the suggestion of some friend, who wished to give some 
relevancy to the main statement above. The testimony is un- 
important, as it is not applicable to the issue between Prof- 
Mattison and myself. 

Brother Hayter states that some time during the two years of 
Brother Creagh's service at Allen street, he was invited with some 
other brethren to hear a letter read, written by Mrs. Palmer to 
Brother Creagh. He then makes these remarks : " Eecently the 
above circumstance was brought afresh to my recollection by an 
allusion to a letter sent to Brother Creagh by Mrs. Palmer in an 
article by Kev. H. Mattison, which appeared not long since in 
the Christian Advocate and Journal, and on noticing Dr. Perry's 
denial that such a thing ever transpired as letters being 
sent by Sister Palmer to Brother Creagh, touching a differ- 
ence of opinon existing between them, I was greatly sur- 
prised, and felt at once that my old friend and brother Dr. P. 
had by some means been misled, and that by looking into a 
diary, which I had been in the habit of keeping for some years, 
I might find some record corroborative of the fact of letters 
being sent, and also of my hearing their contents." 

It is very plain that Brother Hayter misunderstands the issue. 
He understands me to deny "that such a thing ever transpired 
as letters being sent by Sister Palmer to Brother Creagh, touch- 
ing a difference of opinion existing between them." But this is 
not what I deny, nor is the converse of this what Prof. Matti- 
son affirms. He affirms : " Besides, it could be shown, if ne- 
cessary, that Mrs. Palmer once called her pastor Brother Creagh 
to account, and wrote him a very singular letter (still extant), 
because he preached that entire consecration was not entire 
sanctiflcation (as she had taught on page 9th of Entire Devo- 
tion).'' 1 This is the statement I denied, and not that letters had 
been sent "by Sister Palmer to Brother Creagh, touching a 
difference of opinion existing between them." On the contrarj^ 
this " difference of opinion " was admitted, and the causes which 
led to it suggested. 



39 



If the charge of Professor Mattison is analyzed, it will be 
found to make the following declarations, either by plain affir- 
mation or direct inference : 

1. Brother Creagh preached specifically that entire conse- 
cration is not entire sanctification. 

2. Brother Creagh affirmed in preaching on this subject, 
that Mrs. Palmer taught the opposite doctrine on page 9th of 
Entire Devotion, namely, that entire consecration is entire sancti- 
fication. 

3. Mrs. Palmer wrote " a very singular letter " to Brother 
Creagh, on this subject, and "called him to account for preach- 
ing that entire consecration is not entire sanctification" 

4. That Mrs. Palmer not only believed that sanctification 
is mere consecration, but that she contended for this belief with 
her pastor, admitting that she taught it on page 9th of En- 
tire Devotion. 

5. The " very singular letter" on this subject, written by 
Mrs. Palmer to Brother Creagh, is "still extant," and can be 
produced. 

Now, which of these points is sustained by the testimony of 
Brother Hayter ? Not one. He indeed shows that one letter 
was sent, and this I admitted ; but the specific letter spoken 
of by the Professor, and the existence of which I denied, he 
does not identify. He says, indeed, " I believe one is as 
much in favor of holiness as the other f but how could he say 
this if Mrs. Palmer in the letter he heard read contended for 
so gross an error ? Had this been the issue made with Bro- 
ther Creagh by Mrs. P., Brother Hayter would have recorded 
his abhorrence of her doctrine, and declared it unscriptural and 
anti-Wesleyan. Yet Brother Hayter makes no reference to any 
error in doctrine on the part of Mrs. Palmer, but thinks there 
is " a dictatorial spirit in her letter, and some insinuations with 
regard to Brother Creagh that are unwarrantable." " The word 
insinuations," he explains in a note, 11 refers to an impression 
made upon his mind by the language used in the letter which 
accused Brother Creagh of opposing the work of holiness." 
The explanation, it will be perceived, is a recent writing ; the 
extract from the diary was written Nov. 27, 1848. Now had 
this dispute between Brother Creagh and Mrs. Palmer been on 



40 



so vital a point as the Professor affirms it was, would a manlike 
Brother Hayter have failed to " make a note of it" ? It may 
not be amiss to add that the Professor affirms that this letter 
led to Dr. and Mrs. Palmer's removal from Allen street. He 
states besides that when they applied for certificates, Bro- 
ther Creagh at once sat down and wrote them out. Now, 
they applied for certificates on the 13th of Oct., 1848, and 
this letter was read to the brethren, according to Brother 
Hayter's diary, the 27th of Nov., 1848, six weeks afterwards. 
Is not the inference pretty strong that the letter was written 
after their removal, and not before ? It seems to me that it was 
the effect, not the cause of the removal. 

III. — The Rev. Thomas Baker. 

" Where there is much smoke there must he some fire !" — Anon. 

" Rev. Thomas Baker, a local preacher, connected with the Book Room, informed 
me yesterday (March 5th), that Brother Creagh told him that 'Dr. and Mrs. Pal- 
mer claimed to have left Allen street Church for the purpose of assisting Norfolk 
street, but that the real cause of their leaving was, that they did not agree with 
Brother Creagh on the subject of holiness.' I am at liberty to refer to Brother 
Baker for the proof of this point." 

I suppose it is hardly necessary for me to say, that this testi- 
mony does not prove the truth of the Professor's story, that 
Mrs. Palmer wrote the letter in question to Brother Creagh, and 
that she abused him for preaching that entire consecration is 
not entire sanctification. 

As I have no comments to make on the Eev. Thomas Baker's 
testimony, will the Professor allow me to refresh myself amid 
the tedium of plodding through his pages, by the relation of an 
anecdote ? Many years ago, at the Military Academy at West 
Point, a man whose name I have forgotten, but we will call it 
Boulanger, was employed for a series of years to blow the 
bugle-calls for recitation, to make fires in cold weather, and 
sweep out and keep in order the laboratory. The constant 
blowing upon the bugle, operating perhaps upon some innate 
propensity, finally puffed up the man himself, and becoming 
somewhat inflated, he made himself the subject of many pleas- 
antries and harmless witticisms on the part of the cadets. One 
incident which furnished food for mirth among them was the 
following : Mr. Boulanger was subpoenaed as a witness before 



41 



a court in the interior of the State, and when his name was 
called by the attorney for the plaintiff, he presented himself 
and took the oath. He was well dressed in semi-military 
costume ; and the cunning attorney, anxious to make the most 
of his witness, " trots him out" in the following style : 

Lawyer. Mr. Boulanger, where do you live ? 

Mr. B. At West Point, sir. 

Lawyer. What is your business ? 

Mr. B. I am connected with the Military Academy, sir. 

Lawyer. What are your special duties? 

Mr. B. I am attached to the chemical department, sir. 

The examination then proceeded, and the Court and Jury 
supposed they had been honored by the attendance of the Pro- 
fessor of Chemistry from the United States Military Academy 
at West Point, and the pettifogging attorney made a point in 
his case. 

The Professor's next witness is the Eev. John M. Eeid, who 
testifies as follows : 

IY. — Statement of Eey. John M. Eetd. 

"Brooklyn, March 3, 1856. 
"At the request of Professor Mattison, I would certify that, while stationed in 
the village of Jamaica, in the conference years of 1841 and 1848, I attended a 
preachers' meeting in New-York, at which the subject of entire sanctification was 
under consideration, and more particularly the seventh chapter of Eomans in its 
connection with that subject ; that the Eev. B. Creagh, sitting at my side, said that 
he had preached a sermon in Allen-street Church on the subject of sanctification ; 
that he had shown, in the first place, what it was not ; and, secondly, what it was ; 
that, in the simplicity of his heart, and supposing that all Methodists were agreed 
upon the point, he had taught that consecration was not entire sanctification. This 
sentiment, to his surprise, was offensive to Sister Palmer and some of her friends, 
and had created quite a tumult in the church. These are the facts, as nearly as I 
can recollect John Morrison Eeid, 

" Pastor of Summer field M. E. Chapel, Brooklyn." 

Again I inquire, does this witness prove that Mrs. Palmer 
wrote the letter to Brother Creagh, which Professor Mattison 
charged her with writing? He makes no allusion whatever 
to any letter. I may refer to this testimony again ; my present 
object is to settle the main issue. 

The next witness summoned is Mr. A. V. Stout, who makes 
the following statement : 



42 



Y. — Statement of Mr. A. V. Stout. 

" The undersigned would certify that I was a member of the Allen street Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church in the year 1848, at the time that Dr. W. C. Palmer and his 
wife left said Church and joined the Norfork street Methodist Episcopal Church ; that 
I distinctly recollect the preaching of a sermon or sermons by Rev. B. Creagh on the 
subject of sanctification ; that very shortly afterward Dr. Palmer asked for a cer- 
tificate for himself and wife, which was given by brother Creagh ; and that it was 
generally understood and believed by the official members of Allen street Church, 
that said certificate was asked for because said sermon did not agree with the 
teachings of Mrs. Palmer on the subject of sanctification. A. Y. Stout. 

" New-York, March 6, 1856." 

I repeat the inquiry : Is the charge that Mrs. Palmer " wrote 
a very singular letter to her pastor, brother Creagh, calling him 
to account for preaching that entire consecration is not entire 
sanctification," etc., proved? This witness, like the two pre- 
ceding, not even alludes to a letter. 

The Professor next puts in the joint certificate of five breth- 
ren. He evidently thinks the issue yet unsettled, for he re- 
marks : 

" YI. The following certificate will settle the question at issue in the minds of 
all who know the parties : 

" The undersigned hereby certify that we were members of the Allen street Me- 
thodist Episcopal Church, in this city, during the term of Rev. B. Creagh's pastoral 
connection with said Church. Brother Creagh did repeatedly express to us his dis- 
approval of the peculiar views and teachings of Mrs. Palmer upon the subject of 
sanctification ; he also preached a sermon or a series of sermons, in which he directly 
and earnestly controverted those peculiarities. About this time Dr. Palmer called 
at the parsonage, and intimated to brother Creagh the intention of himself and wife 
to remove their membership to the Norfolk street Church. Brother Creagh stated 
to us that he asked the Doctor, ' Will you have your certificates now V They left 
Allen street, and joined Norfolk street Church. He very soon after received from 
Mrs. Palmer a written communication which grieved him much. But at no subse- 
quent time did he ever express to either of us any regret for the position he had 
taken, or the part he had acted in relation to either Mrs. Palmer or her teachings. 
"H. M. Forrester, [President Broadway Insurance Co., and leader in Eigh- 
teenth street Church, New- York City.'] 
" Isaac J. Oliver, [Steward in Bedding M. E. Church, Seventeenth street] 
"Francis Godine, [Trustee and leader in Allen street M. E. Church.] 
" Daniel L. Ross, [Trustee and leader in Bedding M. E. Church.] 
" Schureman Halsted, [Member of Allen street M. E. Church.]" 

This the Professor thinks " will settle the question in the minds 
of all who know the parties." But to what parties does he refer ? 
To the parties to the issue which he says it settles, or to the 



43 



parties who sign the certificate ? If he refers to the former, I 
for once agree with him. If he means the latter, I can not see 
how a knowledge of these parties will settle an issue about 
which thej do not speak a single word, and to which no allu- 
sion whatever is made in their certificate. Again I call atten- 
tion to the issue itself; here it is in the Professor's own words : 
" Besides it could be shown, if necessary, that Mrs. Palmer once 
called her pastor, brother Creagh, to account, and wrote him a 
very singular letter (still extant), because he preached that en- 
tire consecration was not entire sanctifi cation, (as she had 
taught on page 9th of Entire Devotion.) 11 This I deny, and this 
he reaffirms and has tried to prove. Does his last certificate 
help him ? The only allusion to a letter in the certificate is 
this : they state that soon after Dr. and Mrs. Palmer went to 
the Norfolk street Church, brother Creagh "received from 
Mrs. Palmer a written communication which grieved him 
much." This letter has been admitted from the first ; the 
denial is as to the character of the letter. The Professor 
charges that in it she called him to account, and censured him, 
because he preached that entire consecration is not entire sancti- 
fication. This I deny, and assert that it referred to their re- 
moval from Allen street, and not to any question connected 
with the doctrine of sanctification. 

Thus far, then, the Professor, on this point, has advanced no 
further than his own naked, unsupported, and disputed state- 
ment, " Brother Creagh told me so." There is not much risk 
of contradiction sometimes in affirming what a dead man said 
to us when we were alone together ; but of brother Creagh it 
may be said, in more than one sense, " he being dead, yet speak- 
eth." Let him that readeth understand. 

I must for the present be excused from discussing any side 
issues. Whether brother Creagh was glad or sorry that Dr. 
Palmer's family left his Church — whether he was glad or sorry 
about it afterwards — whether he expressed to Mrs. Palmar or 
others "regret for the position he had taken, and the part he 
had acted" — whether they went to Norfolk street because it 
was weak, and left it and returned to Allen street because 
they could not turn it into a kind of Jewish synagogue, or whe- 
ther there is now a prospect of their transfer to Bedford street-— 



44 



these and other questions I must decline to discuss. Circum- 
stances may hereafter make it necessary, but I pray that the 
cause of religion, and our own Church in particular, may be 
spared such an infliction. They have no connection with the 
"eight propositions" of the Professor; let him take full swing 
on them, and I shall be prepared to meet him in the calm con- 
fidence of victory. 

But the Professor next comes to his documentary evidence, 
and draws upon his own resources. He is now about to show 
us that he told the truth when he said : "I have five letters in 
my possession, signed ' Phebe Palmer,' that abundantly prove 
my assertion." Does any one still ask what "assertion" t Why, 
that " Mrs. Palmer once called her pastor, brother Creagh, to 
account, and wrote him a very singular letter (still extant), be- 
cause he preached that entire consecration was not entire sanctifi- 
cation (as she had taught on page 9 of Entire Devotion)." To prove 
this " assertion," he is now about to present the conclusive evi- 
dence of the wonderful letters themselves. Knowing what I 
do of these letters, I am not surprised at his unwillingness to 
produce them. 

He prints a part of the one dated October 27, 1848, the balance 
of which I shall supply, that the reader may judge of his rea- 
son for suppressing it. And then after his obstinate, repeated, 
and solemn asseverations that these five letters " abundantly 
prove his assertion," and that he wishes the "seal of honor 
were removed, that he might show the public where the truth 
lies ;" he at last admits, 11 The other four letters are of no interest 
either way" {Answer, p. 36.) Alas ! alas ! where is honor 
now? 

But now for the part of the letter which he so repeatedly as- 
sures us " abundantly proves his assertion." Eead it, and see 
whether it proves the truth of this story at all, or even holes 
in that direction. What a pity, what a pity, that a minister, 
and " the father of a large family," should deliberately place 
himself in this unenviable position ! And the truth of this as- 
sertion the Professor means to maintain while his right hand 
can hold a pen, or he has a dollar to pay for printing ! He is 
probably a man of such lofty and self-denying heroism, that 
on a point like this, if his good right hand were cut off, he 



45 



would still write in bloody characters with the stump, like the 
famous Wildrington : 

" In doleful dumps, 

Who when his legs were smitten off, 
Still fought upon his stumps." 

But now for 

THE LETTER I ! ! 
" Stuff me out with straw."— Shakspeare. 

"Friday Afternoon, October 21th, 1848. 

"To the Eev. Mr. Creagh: 

" Dear Brother : In humble dependence on God, praying that I may not be 
permitted in any degree to lean to my own understanding, I sit down to address 
a few words to one who has been closely interwoven with my heart's tenderest 
affections. 

"And why has Brother Creagh manifested so much estrangement of late, as to 
set aside even the common courtesies recognized by our Church associations in re- 
lation to his unworthy brother and sister ? The course pursued on Sabbath told 
almost overwhelmingly on our hearts, and seemed strangely uncalled for from one 
who had so long reciprocated our affections. When with kindness of feeling and 
manner we expressed our sincere conviction of duty, in reference to the claims of a 
sister Church, and our intention to sacrifice our feelings, and yield to these convic- 
tions of duty, you immediately said, ' Do you want your transfer to-night ?' This, 
we will acknowledge, looked ominous. To this unlooked-for inquiry (and you will 

remember Dr. P had not intimated the least idea of haste in the matter) my 

husband kindly replied, ' no, Brother Creagh ; any time after the classes are sup- 
plied with leaders will answer.' It would be sadly out of place for us to find fault 
with Brother Creagh's administration ; but as we well know that it is in view of 
the general good of the Church of Christ we had come to a self-sacrificing deci- 
sion, which should have called forth the approval of our pastor, and through him 
the approval of the Church, it seems singularly strange that the whole matter 
should have assumed a form so like being thrust out, in haste, and in a manner 
lacerating to our feelings. The whole matter has assumed a form as though we 
were faulty in a manner not to be defined, and the Church disposed to assume the 
attitude of ejecting us. 

" Our parents on either side were members of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
before we were born, and ever since we were children our humble names have stood 
enrolled on the Church register ; yet we have not known of a case, under ordinary 
circumstances, where a Church member, or, to anticipate your thoughts, a class- 
leader, has been singled out as we were on Sabbath. In view of what some might 
deem the good of the Allen-street Church, we had carefully abstained from giving 
the members of our classes any intimation of our intention to leave them, thus de- 
priving ourselves of the privilege of preparing their minds for our departure. 

" "We expected, as is usual in cases where classes are not, in consequence of the 
wrong-doing of their leader, prematurely torn away, to have had the classes ap- 
prised, and gradually prepared for their change. Had Brother Creagh called, and 
conferred with us in relation to this, it would not have been derogatory to his min- 
isterial dignity, neither would it have been unlike the usual courtesies extended to 
class-leaders under similar circumstances, who have enjoyed the ordinary confi- 



46 



dence of their pastor. And in what way had we forfeited the love and confidence 
of our pastor ? Year3 had passed since our friendship commenced, and we had 
hoped that, as our brother became better acquainted with our Christian character 
and the integrity of our motives, the tendency had not been such as to lessen the 
ardor of his Christian love, when, lo ! the unequivocal demonstrations to the con- 
trary so profusely given — especially will the occurrence of yesterday afternoon ever 
retain a place in my mind — so unlike the ordinary claims of Christian regard, or 
rather respect, are not often met under similar circumstances. "When my husband 
returned from the class-room, and with a calm, chastened air informed me of the 
reception he there met from Brother Creagh, I was rilled with amazement, and said, 
My feelings remind me of my significant dream, (of which, you remember, I in- 
formed you.) The manner in which you here sacrificed his feelings, causes us to 
feel as if we were at a loss to determine what will come next. "What do you think 
were the feelings of that little band to whom he had so affectionately ministered 
for several years past, to behold Dr. Palmer among them, as they well knew, for 
the last time, and he not permitted the privileges that common courtesy would sug- 
gest ? not asked even to speak to a part of the members, or to lift up his voice in 
prayer with them for the last time ? 

;i "What do you think our very dear and kind-hearted friends Bishops Hamline 
and Janes would have thought had they beheld this scene ? And then to know 
the cause which had prompted you to pursue such a course. 

n I have said, ' that Brother Creagh had one that would be a faithful friend to 
him under these circumstances.' God forbid that I should touch his anointed, yet 
in due deference to your ministerial character, and God is my witness when I say, 
that it is in humbleness of spirit before him, prompted by a desire to be your faith- 
ful friend and sister, that I say I need fight in order to ascertain how such a course 
can have proceeded from motives wholly pure and heaven-directed. An influence 
is flowing out through Brother Creagh in relation to this matter, the results of which, 
I think, you would not be pleased to meet, if you were called to render up an ac- 
count of your stewardship to-day. Why could not Brother Creagh at the frwe-feast 
as a faithful pastor, reprove the innuendoes, which, by whispers in the congregation, 
were denominated 'hits for Dr. and Sister Palmer?' "Why? because by the 
course you had pursued, you had given the affair the appearance of a personal 
matter where you had in some measure been wronged, and in doing thus, doubtless 
these brethren thought they had the sanction of Brother Creagh. And would 
Brother Creagh be willing that we through his influence should appear to stand out 
before the Allen-street friends as guilty of some wrong act, and as no longer 
worthy the love and confidence which, for near a score of years, we had enjoyed ? 
Is Brother Creagh indeed willing to lacerate our feelings yet more and more ? Is 
he willing to inflict wounds yet deeper and deeper in those hearts which have al- 
ready suffered pang after pang in coming to the decision to unloose the ties of 
membership with the Allen-street Church ? Is Brother Creagh willing to make 
wider and yet wider breaches between friendships — endearing Christian friendships, 
which were once so pleasant, and so faithfully cherished ? 

'And what has been our fault, or the ground of our offending? From intima- 
tions received, I can not gather other than what may be searched out thus. 

" Pray that your unworthy brother and sister may ever exemplify the spirit of 
Him who, as a lamb dumb before his shearers, opened not his mouth. 

" Your sister in Christ, 

•'Phcebe Palmer." 



47 



Is there one word in this letter that can be tortured into the 
support of the cruel accusation of Professor Mattison ? Let 
the careful reader scan it from beginning to end and point out 
the sentence, or word, or allusion, that gives support to his 
charge that " she had written a very singular letter to her pas- 
tor, Brother Creagh, calling him to account for preaching that 
entire consecration is not entire sanctification? Yet this is the 
only one among the five letters which he said abundantly prove 
his assertion, which he gives in evidence, admitting now with 
a very bad grace, but without a word of apology or excuse, 
11 The other four letters are of no interest either way? "What has 
diminished their interest since he so positively affirmed, " I have 
five letters in my possession signed Phebe Palmer, that abun- 
dantly prove my assertion," and " I only wish the seal of honor 
was removed that I might show the public where the truth 
lies" ? What a fine illustration of the mountain in labor ! 

It will be remembered that in my " Eeply," p. 17, I sug- 
gested that the letter, which the Professor endeavored to hold 
in terrorem over Mrs. Palmer, was probably one written by 
her in relation to the removal of her husband and herself from 
the Allen-street Church to the Norfolk-street Church. Such 
proves evidently to be the fact, even from that part published 
by the Professor, and when the reader has perused the balance 
of the letter, all doubt on this point must disappear. 

Beginning where the stars occur in the part published above, 
the letter reads as follows : 

"A portion of the Lord's vineyard only a little removed from that over which 
the Holy Ghost hath made you overseer lies in comparative desolateness. The 
Great Master of the vineyard, in beholding the superabundance of laborers on the 
part which he has submitted to your superintendence, says most authoritatively to 
a portion of your laborers, 1 Go over and work on that desolate spot where your 
labors have so long been needed, and from whence you have long since heard the 
Macedonian cry, Come over and help.' The searching eye of the Lord of the vine- 
yard, from not having beheld in your heart inclinations which would yield a ready 
response, has by the agency of his own Spirit caused this cry for help to penetrate 
not only the outward ear but the inmost heart of individuals whose labors he well 
knows are not needed on your well-cultivated soil. He therefore in wisdom does 
not subject them to the painful recoilings from duty which the utterance of senti- 
ments lingering about your heart might subject them to, but solely in view of his 
own requirement made by the necessities of the case clear as noon-day, he demands 
that the decision be made. 

" The decision in full view of severings most painful is in the strength of Al- 



48 



mighty grace made, and then the decision with incontrovertible and acknowledged 
reasons of its wherefore is commnnicated. Censures telling painfully on the sensi- 
bilities of the soul are incurred. Yet if this be a true statement of the case, on 
whom does the censure rest ? Does it rest on the Master of the vineyard or the 
laborers, who, amid the recoilings of nature, have hastened to obey his bidding ? 
The whisperings and surmising which have been generated by the course pursued, 
have reached the ear and the heart of the Saviour. Never did I enjoy a sweeter 
or a clearer consciousness of being taken into his heart of love : if our hearts have 
been pierced, we have a sympathizing Friend who in all our afflictions is afflicted. 

" In fasting and prayer, and with a single eye to promote his glory, have we 
sought unto him for wisdom in this matter, and notwithstanding all the painful con- 
sequences of this act we have not seen reason to judge otherwise than that God 
has heard our prayer and led us in a plain path. No, dear brother, we can assure 
you in the presence of the Searcher of hearts, that the path of duty has been so 
plain, that no misgivings have for a moment nestled about our hearts ; and the 
course pursued in relation to it seems only "calculated to assure us, that we had far 
better have gone sooner than to have remained longer. 

" There is one thing more I wish to say in order to be saved, if possible, from 
further censure. The manner in which extended publicity has been given to this 
matter, has, as far as we have been able to judge, elicited public sympathy. This 
you know is what our nature shrinks from. Yet this is not the first time that we 
have been laid a sacrifice upon the service of the Church. Numerous inquiries of 
' 'Where are they going?' etc., are rapidly spreading from one to another, from per- 
sons who, if we had been permitted to go away in quietness, as we intended, had 
perhaps not in months known of our departure. Persons doubtless thus influenced, 
to whom we had never opened our hps on the subject, are now seen in the Norfolk- 
street congregation, and thus by this public and painful sacrifice of feeling has 
public sympathy been enlisted, when the Macedonian cry had failed to call forth 
the enlistment of feeling which its imperativeness demanded. Other objects have 
been gained which perhaps had not been reached had we been permitted to take 
our own noiseless way about this matter. Expressions of hearty approval from 
those who have the general good of the Church at heart, have formed a sweet con- 
trast to the usage received from a few of our Allen-street friends. This has ope- 
rated as balm applied (through instrumentahty) by the Saviour, and its influences 
have been healing. One day during this week, Dr. P. was ministering where 

Bishop and his wife were present. She advised about something for 

Thursday afternoon. 'I can not do thus,' said my husband, ' because I meet my class 
on that afternoon.' ' No, you do not, ' said she, in a significant manner; ' I was at Allen 
street Church on Sabbath, morning, and, Doctor, what have you been doing ?' My 
husband then spoke of the claims of Norfolk street, and the Bishop, who was pre- 
sent, in most hearty terms applauded what he called our heroic and self-denying 
resolve. 

" Yesterday, after he had left the class-room, he was called there again. 1 Doctor, 

did you go to class-meeting ?' said Mrs. , in an earnest tone. J Yes,' he replied. 

And what reception did you meet there ?' she eagerly inquired. He was astounded, 
as he hoped that she had not heard anything of the displeasure we had incurred. 
'And what did you say to the latter inquiry ?' I asked. ' Nothing,' said he, ' for wkai 
could I say ?' Pray that your unworthy brother and sister may ever exemplify the 
spirit of Him who, as a lamb dumb before his shearers, opened not his mouth. 

" Your sister in Christ, Phcebe Palmer." 



49 



Does the letter, when entire, show that Mrs. Palmer was call- 
ing Brother Creagh to account for preaching that entire conse- 
cration is not entire sanctification f I think not. It seems to be 
the very letter I supposed it to be, and to refer only to the sub- 
ject of the transfer of church membership. 

I have hesitated about the insertion of other letters, as it may 
tend to strife, by reopening questions that have been undis- 
turbed for nearly ten years past ; but I partially yield to the 
conviction, that justice demands that it should be done. I shall 
at present print only those referred to by the Professor, to show 
how little ground he had at first for his declaration, " I have 
five letters in my possession signed Phebe Palmer, that abund- 
antly prove my assertion;" and secondly to show the reasons 
assigned at the time by Dr. and Mrs. Palmer for leaving Allen 
street. 

The Professor gives the dates of the letters in his possession 
as follows : Jan. 5, 1847 ; Oct. 13, 1848 ; Oct. 27, 1848 ; Nov. 1, 
1848 ; March 4, 1849. I take them up in their order : 

Letter No. I. 

"New-York, Jan. 5, 1847. 

"To Kev. B. Creagh: 

" My much-loved pastor, whom I esteem highly in love for his work's sake, will 
excuse my absorbing a few moments of his precious time. I do not think I spoke 
with sufficient explicitness to be understood, after service last evening. An im- 
pression of uneasiness has been left on my mind, and a few words would be a small 
relief, though seemingly so trivial. When I spoke to you, after meeting, of my 
perceptions of duty in going out into the highways and hedges, and of the manner 
in which I had been prospered in my endeavors to do so, and that I had thought 
of referring to this duty, when I spoke during the meeting, but had omitted it ; I 
further remarked : ' But I may now be clear of the duty of mentioning this, for if 
Brother Creagh thinks the matter important he may mention it.' What gave me 
uneasiness was, that my manner of speaking might have left an impression on my 
pastor's mind as though I desired to have it mentioned as from me. Of this I had 
not the most distant idea. Yet it is with humility and gratitude before G-od that I 
would revert to the manner in which the great Master of the vineyard has encour- 
aged me in my labors in thus endeavoring to 1 be instant in season and out of sea- 
son.' Some of the most growing members of my class have been thus gathered, 
who might otherwise not have been reached. 

"I hoped to have been favored with physical as well as spiritual ability for useful- 
ness during our protracted meeting, if it were the will of God. I have formerly 
found it good to set myself apart on these special occasions to labor specially to save 
souls. But I find now I shall for the present have to desist from outward labor. I 
am now again suffering with pain in my head and face, much the same as in former 
years, when so nearly laid aside weeks at a time. This distress has, I think, been 
4 



50 



in part induced by being much in meetings recently in over-heated rooms. I pre- 
sume I have taken some cold, as I am also suffering much with my teeth this 
morning. Both Dr. P. and my dentist enjoin it as a duty, at present, that I keep 

my room. If Brother C. should see Mrs. S , 180 Orchard st, at the meetings, 

and vrould speak to her particularly, I think she might be induced to set out to 
seek the Lord with all her heart. She has been much on my mind in prayer, which 
assures me that this is with her a day of visitation. She may not probably be known 
to any one, other than Brother Creagh or myself, as she is a stranger in this part of 
the city. Your sister in Jesus, P. Palmer." 

This is one of the fearful missiles that Prof. Mattison would 
have launched at Mrs. Palmer, had he not been restrained by 
a " seal of honor ;" and by publishing it he could have " abund- 
antly proved" his " assertion," that Mrs. Palmer wrote a very 
singular letter to Brother Creagh, calling him " to account for 
preaching that entire consecration is not entire sanctiflcation." 
What does the reader think of it ? 

But let us look at the next letter : 

Letter No. LT. 

"New- York, Oct 13, 1848. 

u Beloved Brother Creagh: 

11 Seldom have we put pen to paper under what we deem to be more responsible 
circumstances ; and it is not without prayerful deliberation that we make known to 
you, as the pastor of the Allen-street congregation, a decision which has been the 
result of much serious and also painful inquiry. 

" This decision is no other than to ask a certificate of dismission, in order that our 
names may be transferred to the Norfolk-street Church. The request may startle 
you ; and to make it, we can assure you, is indeed, as we have said, painful, and 
the thought that it may also give you pain, and add yet greater weight to your 
already burdened heart, has caused us to linger in painful suspense, until the way 
is now made so plain, that we dare no longer resist what we believe to be the 
order of God. 

" Our kind pastor may desire to know our reasons for coming to this decision. One 
important reason is that our sympathies have been much enlisted for the Norfolk- 
etreet Church on account of its feebleness. The pecuniary wants and the need of 
laborers in this church have already, by its pastor, been made known to Brother 
Creagh, and we need not say that we feel ourselves bound to dispense according to 
the ability given in these respects, and to do this just in the sphere where such as 
God has made us the stewards of, may be most needed, and most effective. In 
looking at the wants of the Norfolk-street Church, Brother Creagh with ourselves 
can have no doubt on this subject. 

" In relation to the Allen-street Church, we have long thought that in view of what 
ought to be her resources, both in regard to her pecuniary ability, her long stand- 
ing as a church, and the amount of piety and talent of her membership, that she 
has within her pale what ought to have been available toward the establishment 
and upbuilding of several churches. 



51 



"With this view, "which has been the sincere conviction of several years past, 
•we feel that it would require an apology for remaining within her pale so long, 
rather than a request for dismission. And if, as inferred, an apology were required, 
we will say what may assure you that we do not take this step without some self- 
denial and serious inconvenience. " It is not expedient doubtless for us to glory," 
yet during the eighteen years of our membership here, we hope we are not without 
seals to our labors, both in regard to the reception of the grace of justification and 
sanctification. To these our hearts are bound in the strong ties of spiritual rela- 
tionship, and the inquiries which may be awakened in the minds of some such 
would be a source of painful solicitude, were it not for the assurance that the ways 
of the Lord are perfect, and we are sure that he would not require this duty without 
causing the consequences to be such as may glorify his name. Thus we dare to 
believe it will be. 

"Another motive which may have had some weight toward detaining us here, is 
the inconvenience to which I shall be subjected in view of the frequency of my 
professional calls, even while engaged in sanctuary services. Yet these matters 
dwindle in view of the inquiry, Can we not, on the whole, bestow our labors on a 
part of the Lord's vineyard where they are more needed than that which we now 
occupy ? If Brother Creagh will look at the comparative wants of the churches in 
question, we think it can not be otherwise than that he w T ill decide with ourselves, 
that we have been influenced by the great Master of the vineyard, to ask a transfer 
to go to a portion which for months past has been calling loudly for help. 

" We have chosen this mode of communication because we could not bring our 
minds to the painful duty of communicating verbally. Our minds are wholly one on 
this subject ; and when our classes, which meet, one on Thursday afternoon, and 
the other on Friday evening, shall be taken in charge by others who may fill our 
places, we shall ask the benediction of our beloved and honored pastor, and take 
our leave. Tours as ever in the bonds of Christian love, 

"Walter C. and Phoebe Palmer." 

This letter, it will be perceived, is written by Dr. Palmer, and 
in bis own name, though, as it conveys the decision of both him 
and his wife, it is properly signed by both. And for this letter 
Mrs. Palmer is reviled (I can not use a milder term), and repre- 
sented as an accuser of the brethren, and especially is it said, 
this letter with the other four abundantly prove that she wrote 
a very singular letter to Brother Creagh, calling him to account 
for preaching that entire'conseoration is not entire sanctification. 
Does the reader think it does much to support this assertion ? 

The next letter, dated October 27, 1848, is the one of which 
the Professor published a part, and the whole of which will be 
found on pages 45-48. Of the other two letters, Nov. 1, 
1848, and March 4, 1849, I have no copies ; the Professor, 
however, admits that they are of no interest either way, and I 
am informed that they are probably invitations to dinner, as 
Brother Creagh dined by invitation at Dr. Palmer's on the days 



52 



of their date. Yet out of these harmless materials the Profes- 
sor manufactures his charge, and with them in his hands, he 
solemnly affirms, " 1 have five letters in my possession, signed 
Phebe Palmer, that abundantly prove my assertion. (See 
Appendix B.)" And in this Appendix he reiterates his charge, 
saying of these letters : "I have five of them before me, signed 
Phebe Palmer, and only wish the seal of honor was removed, 
that I might show the public where the truth lies." The public, 
we think, can now judge where the truth lies, and determine 
whether the Professor has proved, as he said he could do, that 
" Mrs. Palmer once called her pastor, Brother Creagh, to account, 
and wrote him a very singular letter (still extant), because he 
preached that entire consecration was not entire sanctification, (as 
she had taught on page 9 of Entire Devotion.)" 

Having thus disposed of the main issue, let us return and 
examine the circumstances connected with some of the collateral 
matters which were passed by, in order not to embarrass the 
leading question. 

1. Professor Mattison affirms a half dozen times or more, in 
his "Answer" with unqualified assurance, and in every variety 
of phraseology, that I wrote the statement published as Mrs. 
Creagh's in my "Reply" In one place, p. 22, (1.) the reader 
is left to infer that Mrs. Creagh never signed or saw the state- 
ment before it was published. "Dr. Perry," he says, "himself 
sat down at home, and wrote out the 'statement,' putting into 
Mrs. Creagh's mouth what he would like to have true, and 
what he thought would be necessary in order to impeach me." 
But he probably did not design to be so understood, for he 
elsewhere admits that Mrs. Creagh saw the statement, and 
signed it too. 

This is very careless guess-work on the part of the Professor, 
and very like his assertion that Mrs. Palmer wrote a very sin- 
gular letter to her pastor, censuring him for preaching in oppo- 
sition to her views on the subject of holiness, and like that 
assertion it proves to be unfounded. See Dr. Palmer's letter ', p. 62. 

2. In the same manner the Professor repeatedly affirms, that 
the statement of Mrs. Creagh was used by me without her au- 
thority. u Mrs. Creagh," he says, "never authorized Dr. Perry 
to use any facts she had furnished, as he asserts, either directly 



53 



or indirectly ; with her signature or without it." If the reader 
will examine Mrs. Creagh's second statement, published by 
Prof. Mattison in his Answ er, and which he will find on the 34th 
page of this work, he will see that this is more than she affirms. 
The following sentence is all she says with reference to this 
point : "As to giving Dr. Perry any permission to use the 
paper, it is enough to say that I have not seen his face for 
years, and in every way have done all that it was in my power 
to do to prevent its publication." 

I can not be put in a hostile attitude to Mrs. Creagh, any 
sooner than I can consent to arraign the memory of her la- 
mented husband ; I would divide with her my last dollar, and 
sacrifice my right hand to defend her, if my defense were ne- 
cessary. Dr. Palmer, in his letter, page 62, gives a history of 
the statement published by me, which, it will be seen, fully 
justifies the remark by which I introduced it into my Bejply, 
namely : 

" I now submit a statement from the widow of brother Creagh on this point, 
which will, I think, settle the matter. Her name is appended to the statement 
before me ; but while she authorizes me to use the facts she has furnished, she de- 
sires that her name should not be signed to it in print. I honor and respect her 
delicacy." 

There is no apparent conflict on this point between Mrs. 
Creagh and Dr. Palmer. There is an evident error in her 
statement, that at the date of her letter, the 3d of March, she 
had not seen my face for years, for I had an interview with 
her at her own house on the Saturday preceding, but there has 
probably been some tampering with her dates to strengthen 
another point in the Professor's case. With this exception her 
statement on this point is quite accurate, and it is in harmony 
with that of Dr. Palmer. She means evidently that she did 
not in person authorize me to use the facts in her statement, 
and that she has tried to prevent the publication of the paper. 
Dr. Palmer says in his letter, " Mrs. Creagh said that she was 
willing that Dr. Perry should make use of the information con- 
tained in the note, but did not wish to have her name appended, 
and of this I informed Dr. Perry." This statement Mrs. C. 
does not directly nor by implication contradict. Before the 
statement was in print, but after that part of the manuscript 



54 



was prepared, Dr. Palmer informed me that Mrs. Creagh had 
been at his house to obtain a copy of the paper, and that she 
seemed unwilling to have it used. Upon inquiring whether, 
upon more mature reflection, she had recalled any circum- 
stances which ought to make a change in the character of her 
statement, I was told that she did not profess to have done so ; 
but that she was unwilling to be connected with the contro- 
versy, or seem to come in conflict with Prof. Mattison. I re- 
plied that it seemed a late hour to take that ground ; she had 
already, by placing Mrs. Palmer's correspondence in the hands 
of Prof. Mattison, voluntarily connected herself with the con- 
troversy, and as he refused to print the letters, while he con- 
tinued to affirm that they contained monstrously offensive 
matter, we had no means of showing that his affirmation was 
unfounded but by her statement ; and that under the circum- 
stances, I should print her paper unless she was convinced on 
further reflection that it misrepresented the facts in the case. 

The interview between Prof. Mattison and myself, to which 
he refers on p. 22 of his Answer, took place afterwards. In re- 
porting the conversation that occurred, the Professor says : 

" On Tuesday, Feb. 26th, the day after Dr. Perry delivered the manuscript of 
his 'Reply' to the printers, I saw him at the Book-Room, and asked him if he had 
received a note from Mrs. Palmer, requesting him not to publish the paper pur- 
porting to have been written by Mrs. Creagh ? He said he 'had not. I then told 
him that the paper was obtained by unfair means ; that Mrs. C. feared it would 
represent her as saying what was not true ; that she had been over to Mrs. Pal- 
mer's and forbidden its publication ; and that Mrs. P. had assured her that it should 
not be published. Dr. Perry seeming disposed to print the paper, I told him, if he 
doubted the facts stated by me, I would have Mrs. Creagh see him herself, that he 
might be satisfied what her wishes were. He replied, l It will make no difference; 
I shall publish the paper whether she is willing or noV" 

This report, down to the word " means," in the fifth line, is 
sufficiently accurate, but the Professor is mistaken in saying 
that he told me " that Mrs. Creagh feared it would represent 
her as saying what was not true ;" I explicitly informed Prof. 
Mattison, as I had before informed Dr. Palmer, that if Mrs. 
Creagh said the statement was untrue it should be suppressed, but 
under the circumstances, having given Mrs. Palmer's letters to 
Prof. Mattison, who had published broad-cast that they " abun- 
dantly proved" her to have insulted and abused her pastor 



55 



because he did not think as she did on the subject of sanctiflca- 
tion, and having voluntarily signed a statement which put it 
in my power to disprove his charge, her unwillingness would 
not now prevent its publication. I, moreover, informed Prof. 
M. that I could receive no verbal message from Mrs. Creagh 
through him ; that if Mrs. C. wished to recall her statement she 
might send me a request to that effect in writing, if she found 
it inconvenient to call in person. The Professor disclaimed 
speaking in the name of Mrs. C, and there our conversation 
ended. 

After this conversation I heard nothing further, directly or 
indirectly, from Mrs. Creagh, until Friday evening the 29th of 
February, when I received the following note : 

" Willi amsbtjegh, Feb. 29, 1856. 

" Rev. Dr. Perry : 

"Dear Brother: I am very much surprised to learn that a certain paper, purport- 
ing to have been written by me, is now being printed in your '■Reply 1 to Professor 
Mattison's 'Review? That paper, as appears from the printed copy before me, mis- 
represents my sentiments in many points ; says what I did not intend to be said ; 
does great injustice to Professor Mattison and myself; and has been used in direct 
opposition to a repeatedly expressed wish of mine. 

"My object in writing this is most respectfully but decidedly to protest against 
the using in your pamphlet the above-mentioned paper, as coming from myself. 

" Very respectfully, 

"E. A. Creagh. 

"An immediate reply is requested ; and should no answer be received, it will be 
necessary for me to take such measures as I deem proper for self-protection." 

The next day, Saturday, the 1st of March, about 12 o'clock, 
M., or a little later, I called to see Mrs. Creagh. 

Upon this state of facts the Professor makes the following 
flippant remarks : 

" On receiving this [the note], Dr. Perry seemed to suspect that Mrs. Creagh 
was in earnest, and disposed not to be further abused and trampled upon, and went 
directly to Mrs. Creagh's residence. Mrs. Creagh briefly narrated the circumstances 
under which the ' statement' was obtained (as related in her letter, page 21), and 
told Dr. Perry emphatically that its publication must be stopped. Upon this Dr. 
Perry assured her that it was too late; that the pamphlet containing it was already 
published, and ' all over the country P " 

Professor Mattison here represents me as having " abused 
and trampled upon Mrs. Creagh," than which nothing can be 
more ill-natured and absurd. She says herself that she had 



56 



not seen my face for years, nor had I received any communi- 
cation from her, either written or verbal, nor had I spoken or 
written to her. I had done no act, and spoken no word, that 
could annoy her up to the publication of her statement, yet 
the Professor says, now " Dr. Perry seemed to suspect that 
Mrs. Creagh was in earnest, and disposed not to be farther 
abused and trampled upon, and went directly to Mrs. Creagh's 
residence." I had thought then, it seems, before this time, 
while abusing and trampling upon her, that she was not in 
earnest ! Will the Professor relate her grievances in his next 
pamphlet ? Alarmed, however, by the report of the gun 
loaded by the scientific Professor, and fired by Mrs. Creagh, I 
am represented as making haste to Mrs. Creagh's residence, 
where " she briefly related the circumstances under which the 
statement was obtained, and told Dr. Perry emphatically that 
its publication must be stopped!" Here is a fine specimen of 
the style imperative ! Neither Mrs. C. nor her friends will 
recognize her in the imperious attitude in which the Professor 
has sketched her. So awe-inspiring, however, does the Pro- 
fessor's graphic pen describe her to be, that Dr. Perry trem- 
blingly attempts to escape punishment by inventing a false- 
hood ! "He assured her," says the Professor, " that it was too 
late ; that the pamphlet containing it was already published, 
and £ all over the country P " 

I must defer attending to this important point until the 
interview with Mrs. Creagh is closed. Hear, then, another 
version of the affair. 

The next day, about noon, after receiving Mrs. Creagh's 
note, I called to see her. After a brief conversation and 
inquiring after her health and that of her family, I stated that 
I had received her note, and regretted to learn from it that the 
"statement" in my "Reply" misrepresented her sentiments. 
She stated in substance that the publication had annoyed her — 
that a few days after it was signed she made an effort on two 
occasions to obtain a copy of it, but had failed to do so ; and 
I think she added, that she had once sent her daughter on the 
same errand without success ; that when she found herself 
disappointed in obtaining a copy, in consequence of Mrs. 
Palmer having sent the paper to me, she objected to its being 



51 



published at all ; and that now that it was published, it misre- 
presented her sentiments in several respects ; that when the 
paper was first read to her, before she signed it, she had ob- 
jected to parts, which Dr. Palmer then struck out, but which 
she was sure were now published. I told her that nothing that 
had been stricken out was now printed, but as she seemed to 
doubt, I showed her the original paper, with the erasures in 
the same state in which the paper came into my hands. She 
read it over very carefully, and then alluding to a word or 
two, said she had objected to them, and felt sure Dr. Palmer 
had stricken them out. 

I then inquired in what she had been misrepresented, and 
she answered, that Professor Mattison was represented in the 
" statement" as having urged her to give him the letters, and 
that it was stated that she did it reluctantly — 'both of which 
were incorrect, and both of which she had objected to, and 
thought were erased by Dr. Palmer. I replied, that after 
receiving her note I had examined the statement, and the words 
she referred to were the very last which I supposed could mis- 
represent her, for that under similar circumstances I thought 
I should have been reluctant to part with letters. I then 
observed that I regretted very much that I had not heard from 
her earlier ; that the part to which she objected did not affect 
the issue between myself and Professor Mattison, and could 
just as well have been omitted, had I known her wishes ; but 
that it was now too late ; that the whole edition was stereo- 
typed and printed, and copies had already gone out through 
the country. 

This is the purport of my conversation with Mrs. Creagh, 
and I have not the slightest doubt that my statement will be 
confirmed by her and the others who were present. 

But, says the Professor : " Dr. Perry assured her that the 
pamphlet containing it (her statement) was already published 
and all over the country." 

He then proceeds to inquire of 11 one of the foremen in the 
Book Koom as to when the first copies of Dr. Perry's pamphlet 
were printed and bound ready for delivery," and received the 
answer in writing, "that the last form of Dr. Perry's 1 Reply 1 
went to press at 9J o'clock on Friday morning, February 29th, 



4 



58 



and that perfect copies were delivered to the binder at 10 
o'clock, Saturday, March 1st. The binder delivered to the 
sale-room the first copies, folded and stitched, at half-past nine 
o'clock, A.M., Monday, March 3d." 

This statement the Professor affirms can be "verified by the 
oaths of a dozen persons." I have not the slightest doubt of 
it. And I suppose that the same persons would swear that 
the Book-Eoom stands on Mulberry street, that New- York is 
on Manhattan Island, and that Franklin Pierce is President of 
the United States ; but I can not perceive how the logical Pro- 
fessor employs this to prove that Mrs. Palmer wrote the letter 
he charged her with writing. The oaths of a dozen persons 
on this point would be of service to him. But he "wishes it 
distinctly understood that he does not impeach Brother Perry's 
veracity even in this seemingly dark case." Oh! no; he 
" means to lean to the side of charity." 

Yet the case is dark, and he assumes a solemn countenance 
and feels sad : 

" The niglit looked black, and boding darkness fell 
Precipitate and heavy o'er the world ; 
At once extinguishing the sun." 

Mallet's Musiapha. 

The Professor is under deep concern of mind on this subject, 
and we will charitably relieve him by administering two or 
three certificates. We prescribe homeopathically for obvious 
reasons. 

No. I. 

"New-Canaan - , Conn., March 19, 1856. 
"Dear Brother Perry: I received your 'Reply' to Professor Mattison's 'Calm 
Revievj' or the first forty-nine pages of it, at the Book-Room, Friday afternoon, 
Feb. 29, 1856. Yours truly, H. Husted." 

No. II. 

"New-York, March 31s£, 1856. 
"I obtained a copy of Dr. Perry's 'Reply' to Professor Mattison's 'Calm Review* 
at the Methodist Book-Room, 200 Mulberry street, on Saturday, March 1, 1856. 

"W. H. Dikeman, 

" Comptroller's Office, Park." 

No. III. 

" I saw and examined a copy of Dr. Perry's pamphlet entitled, 'A Reply to the 
Calm Review of Professor Mattison,' on the evening of the 29th of February, 1856. 

"A. H. Adams, 

" 229 Broadway, N. Y." 



59 



I "have two or three other certificates of the same kind, and 
could doubtless procure more, in addition to that of Mrs. 
Creagh, who states that she had a printed copy before her on 
the 29th of February. She probably received the first cor- 
rected copy, inasmuch as I directed the printer to give Profes- 
sor Mattison the first one that was struck off. I did this as a 
matter of favor to him, as he was very anxious to see the 
"Reply" and he now returns the kindness by using it in an 
attempt to impeach my veracity. " I flogged that boy," said 
Mr. Squeers, "not half an hour ago, and now he speaks evil 
of me ! There's gratitude for you." The Professor probably 
thinks, however, that he balances the account by nominating 
me for Book Agent to the delegates to the next General Con- 
ference. " It is an edict ! Let them hear and obey !" Is the 
Professor satisfied that he has not impeached my veracity on 
this point ? 

Having had the advantage, through my generosity, of the 
earliest copy of my "Reply" the Professor had time to study 
how he might best avoid the utter overthrow in store for him. 
He therefore judged it the best thing he could do to print a 
copy of the letter he had prepared for Mrs. Creagh to send to 
me, and appending a few remarks of his own, have it ready to 
distribute at the same time with the "Reply." 

It may be well to let him tell his own story : 

" I had a few hundred copies of Mrs. Creagh's letter to Dr. Perry printed off, 
with the heading, A Ray of Light,' and with the following note under it: 

" 'The circumstances under which the paper above referred to was obtained from 
Mrs. Creagh; the effort she has made to prevent its publication; the measures 
resorted to to deceive her; the promises made her that have been broken; how 
she came to sign the paper at first, and by what means she is made to say what 
she distinctly stated at the time was not true, will be fully narrated by Mrs. Creagh, 
over her own signature, in my "Answer to Dr. Perry's Reply to the Calm Review,'" 
which will be ready next Monday, March 10th.' It will also contain Mrs. Palmer's 
letters to brother Creagh, and other interesting documents and well-authenticated 
facts. " Truth is mighty and must prevail." H. Mattison.' 

" Finding the Ray of Light lying upon the counter by the side of his Reply ; and 
that the preachers were greatly interested in it ; and hearing, also, an almost uni- 
versal expression of disapproval of his course, Dr. Perry became much excited, 
and at length went up to the printer's, and had the following printed on small slips 
of paper : 



60 



"'Another Rat of Light. 

" 1 The misrepresentations of which Mrs. Creagh complains, and the injustice 
done, as she conceives, to Professor Mattison, consist in this alone : 

" ''She does not wish it to be understood that she was urged by Professor Matti- 
son to give him the letters, or that she did it reluctantly. 1 " 

For the truth of my statement I referred to one of the parties 
present at the interview. 

On this brief explanatory note of mine, the Professor grows 
indignant. " Observe," he says, " he represents Mrs. Creagh as 
complaining of a comparatively small matter only, yet on the 
afternoon of the same day Mrs. Creagh carefully read over and 
delivered to me the genuine statement!" "Besides, Mrs. 
Creagh had expressly stated in her note to Dr. Perry, (1) That 
the statement he was about to publish misrepresented her sen- 
timents in many points. (2) That it said what she did not in- 
tend to say. (3) That it does great injustice to myself; and 
(4) That it had been used in direct opposition to her repeatedly 
expressed wishes. And yet Dr. Perry attempted to blind the 
eyes of some forty Methodist ministers, by his Bay of Light 
above quoted ! I do not wonder that some inquired, ' What 
ails the man ? Has he lost his reason, or what?' " 

On these notes and comments it may be proper to pause a 
moment. 

(1.) The self-sufficiency of the Professor is a marked feature 
in his character. His Bay of Light greatly interested the 
preachers, and "Dr. Perry hearing an almost universal expres- 
sion of disapproval of his course, became much excited," etc. 
Leaving out embellishments from this description, the truth is 
simply this : I came into the book-store quite early in the day 
when the preachers were engaged in the " preachers' meeting,'' 
and saw the Professor's Bay of Light, and thinking it calculated 
to deceive, went up-stairs and had the explanatory notice 
struck off, and placed beside the other. I think there was 
not a preacher present when I came in, and I heard no re- 
marks whatever, either of approbation or disapprobation, at 
any time during the morning. The Professor however has a 
ready ear for praise of any course he pursues, and he always 
knows that great numbers of our preachers and people agree 
with him in his opinions. He receives, he says, a great many 



61 



letters approbatory, and is always with the great majority. 
There is a trumpet blown before him, but he is the performer 
himself. 

(2.) Will the reader now examine my explanatory note, and 
compare it with what the Professor says Mrs. Creagh's state- 
ment contains, and decide whether my explanation of the 
causes of Mrs. Creagh's dissatisfaction is at all incomplete or 
imperfect ? 

I say, " The misrepresentations of which Mrs. Creagh com- 
plains, and the injustice done, as she conceives, to Professor 
Mattison, consist in this alone : 

" She does not wish it to be understood that she was urged by 
Professor Mattison to give him the letters, or that she did it 
reluctantly." 

Now the Professor makes an outcry, and pretends this is not 
a full explanation of Mrs. Creagh's grievances, saying : 

" Besides, Mrs. Creagh had expressly stated in her note to Dr. Perry, (1.) That 
the ' statement ' he was about to publish ' misrepresented her sentiments in many 
points.' (2.) That it said what she did not intend to say. (3.) That it does great 
injustice to myself; and (4.) That it had been used in direct opposition to her re- 
peatedly expressed wishes. And yet Dr. Perry attempted to blind the eyes of some 
forty Methodist ministers by his ' Kay of Light ' above quoted ! I do not wonder 
that some inquired, ' What ails the man ? Has he lost his reason, or what ?" 

The Professor blunders in a very bungling manner, in at- 
tempting to magnify my offenses. Any school-boy can see that 
his grievances marked (1.) and (2.) are simply one complaint, 
namely, misrepresentation. His complaint marked (4.), namely, 
that the paper had been used in opposition to her wishes, can 
refer certainly to no misrepresentation contained in the letter 
itself. And finally, the Professor fails to specify one point 
which my explanation contains. 

It seems therefore, upon the whole, that my hurried explana- 
tory note, so much abused by the Professor, is a fuller explana- 
tion of the points in which Mrs. Creagh deemed herself mis- 
represented, than the Professor's more labored production. 
Let any one interested compare his analysis and my note with 
Mrs. Creagh's last statement, and he will acknowledge that I 
am right. 



62 



"MBS. CREAGH'S REAL STATEMENT." 
In reply to the loose remarks contained in what the Profes- 
sor calls his " analysis of Mrs. Creagh's real statement," I 
submit the following letter from Doctor Palmer : 

"New- York, March 21th, 1856. 

" Dr. Perry : 

" Dear Brother : I see in Mr. M.'s last issue some things that may require an 
explanation. I would, with Mrs. P., as heretofore, maintain silence, but I find that 
Mr. M. has now so involved the character of others with ourselves, that it seems 
due to our neighbor, and to the cause of Christ in its connections with ourselves, 
that I should for once speak out. I greatly deprecate any course that may seem 
to favor an impression in the minds of the uninitiated, that holiness is a contro- 
verted subject. And I wish here distinctly to state that neither Mrs. P. nor myself 
has ever appeared in controversy with Mr. M., neither is the controversy in which 
Mr. M. has been engaged during the past five years, a controversy on the subject 
of holiness, but mainly a discussion of private character, made up largely of attacks 
on the professors of holiness, in view of putting down the profession of holiness. 
And this was the point from which Mr. M. started. This also accounts for the fact 
that so many of the more eminent for devotedness and usefulness in our ministry 
have been personally assailed. Professing to have attained the grace, and knowing 
from their own personal experience that it could not be retained if they hid the 
fight within their hearts, they came out to defend the profession as both Scriptural 
and Wesleyan. 

"In return they were attacked personally and branded as mere partisans of the 
so-called 'New Theory.' Not daring to use such weapons in return as those with 
which they had been met, and believing that it was to the disadvantage of the 
cause of Christian holiness to maintain the warfare under such circumstances, they 
retired from the field, not vanquished by Mr. M.'s single-handed attacks as he 
would suggest, but fearful that the enemies of holiness might triumph in view of 
such weapons as Mr. M. called into requisition in the contest. Among those who 
have thus from time to time appeared, and thus from conscientious motives retired, 
were Rev. Dr. Bowen, Presiding Elder in the Oneida Conference; Rev. P. G-. Hib- 
bard, P. E. in the East Genesee Conf. ; Rev. Win. Reddy, P. E. on the Chenango 
District ; Rev. E. Thomas, P. E. on the Bufifalo District ; Rev. D. Wheden, of Nor- 
wich ; Rev. Dr. Mitchell, of Brooklyn ; and last, but surely not least, the venerable 
Dr. N. Bangs, who for half a century has stood as an able defender of the doctrines 
and institutions of Methodism. 

" These, with other persons well known in the religious community for influential 
piety and theological reliability, have in turn been met by the indefatigable Mr. M., 
and each has received an apportionment of opprobrium commensurate with his 
zeal in defending the profession or professors of holiness. Age and position have 
been alike unheeded. The usage that the venerated Dr. Bangs received in his 
discussion with Mr. M. on this subject, two or three years since, will abundantly 
testify to this. Mr. M.'s personal attacks on Dr. Bowen in the Northern Christian 
Advocate, where Mr. M. carried on his former 'discussion,' is yet more pamfully 
characterized. 

"Yet strange as it may appear, Mrs. P. and her writings have in all this been 



63 



the one signal mark aimed at. Once, after a steady contest for about three months, 
Mr. M. expressly acknowledges that the whole has been aimed at Mrs. P. He 
says, 1 The sum of the whole matter is this,' and then proceeds to single out Mrs. P. 
as the mark at which his whole artillery had been aimed. Mrs. P. needed not to 
be informed of this, for too painfully had she felt the point of his barbed arrows. 
Yet in all this, Mrs. P. with myself were utterly silent. Never but once, and that 
was subsequent to the occasion referred to, has Mrs. P.'s name appeared in self-de- 
fense, and that was in an article of about a dozen lines, and that not an attack, but 
merely by way of correcting a mis-statement. And yet Mr. M. is continually reite- 
rating that Mrs. P. has ' attacked ' him, ' made the first attack,' etc. Nothing could 
be more unfounded or supremely ridiculous. Not one of the articles to which Mr. 
M. refers was written with any idea of attacking Mr. M. The articles in them- 
selves are general in their character, as any one with ordinary capacity will at once 
discover on referring to them. 

"In view of the fact that every one who had undertaken the defense of Mrs. P. 
against the personal aspersions of Mr. M., has been branded by him before the pub- 
lic as a mere partisan of the 1 New Theory,' I thought your coming out to defend 
Mrs. P. against Mr. M.'s eight libellous propositions as most opportune. I have 
never for one moment thought otherwise than that the righteous Lord who loveth 
righteousness moved you to it. I knew nothing of your acceptance of the chal- 
lenge until after you had done it. Mr. M. says I got you to do it. This is untrue, 
for I would never have thought of asking you to undertake it. I had never known 
any thing of your views in connection with the subject, and presumed that you 
were the last minister that Mr. M. might assail after his own fashion. "Whether 
you were successful against Mr. M. or otherwise, I thought he might not be able to 
put his peculiar mark of reprobation as a partisan of his 4 new theory.' But I see 
yourself, in connection with the late departed Editor of the Christian Advocate and 
Journal, Dr. Bond, have not escaped. 

"But it was not my intention to dwell thus long on these matters. I took up 
my sheet to make explanations which it may not be in the power of any other 
hand (with the exception of Mrs. P.) to make. And Mrs. P. still resolves as here- 
tofore on a determined silence, and Mr. M.'s characteristic and persistent zeal in 
making the first and the last attack, or, in other phrase, having the first and last 
word, may surely meet no resistance from Mrs. P., for she is still, and as long as 
life endures will doubtless continue, steady in the resolve to ' answer him not a 
word,' Isa. 36 : 21. 

"P. 16. Mr. M. says, that Mrs. P. wrote the Eev. B. Creagh a letter which is 
still extant, finding fault with him for preaching that ' entire consecration was not 
entire sanctification.' No such letter can be ' extant,' for Mrs. P. never wrote Mr. 
C. one line on that subject. Mr. M. has reiterated this many times, but there is 
not the least foundation of truth in the matter. 

"Mr. M. represents Mrs. Creagh as clear in the belief that Mrs. P. asked to be 
allowed to recall the particular letter referred to. There is not the least shadow of 
truth in this. Mrs. P. never did recall a letter, nor never wrote a letter to Mr. C. 
that she regretted or even had the least desire to recall. Mrs. P. did write some 
letters to Mr. Creagh as her pastor, and designed for his eye alone, involving princi- 
ples of duty which she would not object to have read and known the world over. 
Yet he says they abundantly prove that they contain an offensive attack on 
brother Creagh because he differed from her in doctrine. They in the 
most explicit manner give the reasons why Dr. and Mrs. P. left the Allen-street 



64 



Church. And they are reasons which we do not object to have given to the world, 
and therefore do not object to jour giving them to the public if you think well to 
do so, believing that a development of the principles therein involved will be to 
the praise of G-od, and also that the Christian public may judge whether Mr. M. as 
a Christian minister has represented us truthfully. 

u Equally open for inspection would we wish every word and act connected with 
our interview with Mrs. Creagh. Neither Mrs. C. nor any other person present 
during that interview could have written those statements. Mrs. P. and myself 
are there represented as unduly pressing Mrs. C, and in such haste as not to have 
given her time for consideration in regard to the purport of the note, not even tak- 
ing time to ' sit down,' threatening to impeach Mr. C, with other similar and unkind 
and unbecoming allusions. This was not so. The circumstances in the case were 
these. I wrote that note myself, to which Mrs. C. appended her name, though Mr. M. 
with the utmost precision affirms that you wrote it. I wrote it because I sincerely 
imagined that it would be an affliction to Mrs. C. to know that Mr. M. had raised 
up Mr. C. among the other honorable dead whose names he had from time to time 
resurrected to testify against Mrs. P. I was sure she knew that if living he would 
abhor to have stood in the antagonistic position in which Mr. M. had now placed 
him. The question had been asked Mrs. P., 'Is Mrs. Creagh your enemy ?' and in 
view of Mrs. C.'s having given letters from under her hand which Mr. M. had by 
his innuendoes made use of to injure Mrs. P., was calculated to excite the suspi- 
cion that Mrs. C. was our enemy ; and not thinking that this was really the case, or 
that Mrs. C. would thus have designedly injured Mrs. P., I wrote out that state- 
ment, thinking that Mrs. C. would wish to repair the injury, and would therefore be 
pleased to put her name to the statement. Neither Mrs. P. nor myself had any 
wish that Mrs. C. should put her name to the paper otherwise than as it might suit 
her wishes. Mrs. P. just before reaching Mrs. C.'s door had said to me, { Now I have 
no desire that Mrs. C. should put her name to the statement unless it be for the best. 
My influence belongs to God. It is worth nothing only in view of its connections with 
Truth. Yet truth does not belong to us, but to God. "We have no private interests 
to serve ;^fh interests are all identified with the interests of the Eedeemer's king- 
dom. If Sister Creagh puts her name to this, it will be for the best ; if not, I shall 
be satisfied.' 

"As we entered, we found Mrs. C. at home. After sitting and conversing some 
time on family and religious interests, the subject of her statement was introduced, 
every word or sentiment where she proposed a change was made, and not a word 
or sentiment altered or reinserted. Mrs. 0. at first hesitated over the word 1 per- 
suaded,' when her daughter said, 1 Why, Ma, you remember that you told Mr. M. 
that you did not know but that you ought to ask Mrs. P. first.' Mrs. C. then 
seemed to waive that point wholly, or it would have been stricken out. I after- 
ward read the paper over again and again, in order that Mrs. C. might be perfectly 
satisfied that the sentiments were wholly her own, Mrs. C. not objecting in the 
least to the subsequent reading. Mrs. C. said that she was willing that Dr. Perry 
should make use of the information contained in the note, but did not wish to have 
her name appended, and of this I informed Dr. Perry. In view of these facts I. 
would again repeat, Mrs. C. or any one present during that interview could not 
have written the letter headed a 1 G-enuine Statement.' 

" No unkind words or allusions, such as impeaching Mr. C, etc., were made use of. 
The interview closed affectionately and with prayer, after having remained, I think, 
over half an hour. The nest afternoon Mrs. C. called to see Mrs. P., just as I was 



65 



preparing to go out on a hurried professional call. Mrs. C. said nothing in relation 
to her statement of the preceding evening, the few moments I was in the room pre- 
paring myself to go out. After I left, Mrs. C. informed Mrs. P. that she had come 
to get a copy of the statement she had made the preceding evening. Mrs. P. said 
she expected Dr. P. had it with him, as she thought he was in anticipation of see- 
ing Dr. Perry during the afternoon. Mrs. P. then ran to the door, and made an 
effort to call me back, but I had gone too far. Mrs. P. then perhaps may have pro- 
posed sending a note to Dr. Perry, in regard to Mrs. O.'s wish to have a copy of the 
note, but this she does not distinctly remember ; but she does distinctly remember 
that if such a suggestion was made it was quickly recaUed, for she rather earnestly 
advised Mrs. C. to see Dr. Perry herself, believing that an interview with Dr. P. 
would be satisfactory ; and not knowing but she would avail herself of it if she 
deemed the subject important, Mrs. P. dismissed the matter. It was not until after 
some days that Mrs. C. again called, when the thing had passed wholly from our 
hands, and Mrs. P. earnestly advised Mrs. 0., in view of her evident change of feel- 
ing, either to call on Dr. Perry or write to him, and recall her note, if not beyond 
recall. 

"It is true that I did conscientiously believe that the cause of 'truth and right- 
eousness ' required that an effort should be made to vindicate Mrs. P.'s personal and 
religious character against the long-continued and painful pursuings of Mr. M. Had 
I been a man of the world with the law of my country at command, forbearance 
would long since have been accounted cruelty and cowardice. But are there no 
laws by which religious communities are to be governed ? What are church tri- 
bunals for but to meet such emergencies ? I therefore, after Mr. M. had issued his 
eight most slanderous propositions, which he pledged himself to sustain before tens 
of thousands of readers, felt that it would be religiously and morally wrong to for- 
bear any longer. But as a member of the M. E. Church, I seriously contemplated 
availing myself of the redress which her church tribunal furnishes to her wronged 
members. As I observed how Dr. Mitchell, under the title of 'Equity,' and other 
ministers had been reviled, I saw that to undertake our defense endangered minis- 
terial reputation far too seriously, and we scarcely dared to hope or wish that 
another minister might come out in our defense. What could we do ? To leave 
Mr. M. to attempt to prove his eight dreadful propositions, to the scandal of the 
precious cause of Christian holiness well nigh the world over, and not to make use 
of every means to prevent such a catastrophe, to my mind would involve serious 
guilt. The idea of praying that the Lord would avert the evil, without the use of 
the means, looked fanatical. 

" We would fain have taken the Scriptural course with Mr. M. : ' If thy brother 
trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone.' Mrs. 
P. had about three years ago, at a time when she conceived herself to be near death, 
sent him a kind note by the hand of a minister, inviting him to call on her. This 
invitation, though given under affecting circumstances, was contemptuously repulsed. 
' What does she want of me ?' said Mr. M. to the bearer. ' She wishes to tell you 
wherein you have misrepresented her.' 1 1 have no time to attend to it,' said Mr. 
M., and hastily turned away. What resource was left ? I saw but one way to 
save the Church from these unseemly and continued reiterations of public scandal, 
in connection with the blessed cause of perfect love, and that was a church trial. 
And I would also fain have done this in as private a manner as the circumstances 
would admit. I do not think that in all more than half a dozen persons knew of 
my design. I apprised Mr. M. by letter of my intention to prefer charges, unless 
5 



66 



he should desist and retract his unfounded and slanderous attacks on Mrs. P. ; when 
Mr. M., to my astonishment, and the surprise of the Methodist community, pub- 
lished my private letter, accompanied with a most trying repetition of offenses and 
yet more glaring insult. 

"I consequently saw but one resource, and that was a church tribunal. I 
therefore, in all good conscience, made known to Mr. M. my design, and wrote 
out a list of charges which I do not doubt might be sustained. A short time 
after apprising Mr. M. of my intention, I learned from the Christian Advocate 
and Journal that you had undertaken to accept the challenge to defend Mrs. 
P. and her writings against Mr. M.'s injurious aspersions. It was in conse- 
quence of this that I relinquished my design of bringing charges against Mr. M. 
With your defense I was more than satisfied. Hundreds of the friends in every 
quarter regard it as a triumphant vindication, and I hear but one opinion on the 
subject. I was not advised by any bishop or bishops either to undertake or relin- 
quish the proposition. No Presiding Elder ever sent me word, as stated by Mr. M., 
that if I did prosecute Mr. M., I would have the condemnation of the New-York 
Conference, etc. ; neither have I heard or received a word favoring such a sugges- 
tion. 

" P. 83 : 1 They have recently gone back to the strong church, leaving the weak 
one weaker than when they went to it. "Why ? The pastor of the Norfolk-street 
Church would not favor nor preach the "shorter- way" theology,' etc. The pastor 
did earnestly and explicitly favor and preach the good old Scriptural and "Wesleyan 
doctrine of entire sanctification by faith, in a manner that was perfectly satisfactory 
to both Mrs. P. and myself. The financial condition of the church was by several 
thousand dollars better when we left than when we went to its aid. When we 
went, its indebtedness was nearly $18,000 ; when we left, after about eight years' 
sojourn, its indebtedness was but little over $10,000. In the mean time, the 'strong 
church,' which was at our door, had become comparatively weak by the removal 
of man^of its members. It is humiliating to descend to such particulars in vindi- 
cation of •private character against the grovelling assaults of a minister ; but every- 
where throughout the pamphlet do such wholly unfounded statements abound, and 
our connection with the cause of truth and purity requires that these things should 
not be believed. Otherwise, the command, ' Let not your good be evil spoken of,' 
were not obeyed. Yours truly, Walter C. Palmer." 

"P. S. — The course Mr. M. has pursued toward Mrs. P., in view of its connections 
with the doctrine and profession of perfect love, has to both Mrs. P. and myself been 
exceedingly painful. Never have I seen Mrs. P. endure such mental suffering, 
never have I heard her vent such sighs, or seen her shed such tears, as from the 
pain inflicted in view of what she believes to have been the woundings of Christ's 
cause, as occasioned by Mr. M.'s course. God only has been witness to the many 
sleepless midnight hours of solicitude spent in prayerful devisings, in efforts to save 
the Church from Mr. M.'s ever public and personal array of opposing influences. 
But why not let Mr. M. wholly alone ? Had Mrs. P. been wholly like the Saviour, 
or the prophets and apostles wlien accused, might not the precious cause of holi- 
ness have been saved from these open and cruel inflictions ? And would not Mr. 
M. long since have ceased his hostilities ? No ! He has himself expressly declared, 
that unless Mrs. P. withhold her books, that is, 'cease to scatter them,' and cease 
otherwise to labor in the promotion of the cause, that he will not desist. We wish 
it to be distinctly remembered, that instead of attacking Mr. M. in return, we have 



67 



1 let him alone wholly.' And even in self-defense, as before stated, Mrs. P. has 
spoken ont but once during the whole five years. Could more be demanded 
for peace than this ? Does the precedent furnished by the example of the pro- 
phets and apostles demand more than this ? In relation to the example of the 
Saviour, who, when accused and condemned, answered not a word, we can only 
say his sufferings were vicarious, and he well knew that whatever his answer might 
be, the purpose of his persecutors was fixed, and his life was now to be given a 
sacrifice for the sins of the world. But neither does the example of the Saviour, 
the prophets, apostles, or martyrs, or any of the requirements of the doctrine of 
perfect love, make it necessary that any one, without an effort at vindication, should 
see truth made disreputable, and his character and ability for usefulness destroyed, 
without an effort at vindication. Both the prophets and apostles did vindicate 
themselves when assailed. Paul did condemn, and in unmistakable language, the 
slanderous reportings of his Jewish brethren, whose unjust accusations were calcu- 
lated to harm the cause of pure religion. Had he m?' . gained an ignoble silence, when 
the cause of truth required an outspoken refutal, it might have been more pleasant 
to his quiet nature, but it would have been an inglorious quiet, and no less than 
treachery to the cause of truth. Peter and the other apostles, after they had been 
beaten, and commanded to speak no more in the name of Jesus, might have been 
quiet, and the ferment which the doctrines of the cross had occasioned might 
have ceased its agitations, had the apostles obeyed. But the apostles experimentally 
knew of the truth of the doctrines whereof they affirmed ; and happy is it for us that 
they concluded that it were better to obey God than man. And thus have we con- 
cluded in regard to the precious doctrine of holiness, of which we have professed dur- 
ing the past twenty years to have had some blessed heart experiences. Too well 
do I know Mrs. P.'s earnest convictions of duty, and her unalterable purpose to pro- 
claim with hp and pen, Christ as a Saviour, able to save unto the uttermost as long 
as life endures, to conceive that Mr. M. will ever be successful in causing her to with- 
hold her books, or to cease laboring in promoting the blessed cause of heart holiness. 
Too many hundreds of written testimonials has she on hand from among the min- 
istry and laity, and of various denominations, who have experimentally tested the 
truth of the doctrines laid down in those works, to dare to withhold them from the 
public. Too palpable is the voice of the press from men eminent for theological 
reliability, in America and Europe, in favor of the works as Scriptural and W es- 
leyan, for Mrs. P. or myself to cease to scatter them, though it may be against 
Mr. M.'s single-handed opposition. In view of this, though I have heretofore 
been silent, and have tried in every conceivable way, as the public will on re- 
flection bear me witnes?, to be private in my expostulations with Mr. M., yet I 
shall hereafter consider it to be a religious and moral duty to defend Mrs. P. 
against his unkind and unfounded allegations. If Mr. M.'s injurious allegations 
are utterly unfounded, as has been most clearly proved, does the cause of religion 
require that they should not be shown to be unfounded because he is a minister ? 
Is it not because he is a minister of a truthful religion, and therefore will be be- 
lieved, that the cause of truth requires that the falsity of his positions should be 
shown ? If Mr. M. is believed, the effects of Mrs. P.'s labors are destroyed. Mr. 
M.'s open and long-acknowledged aim has been to destroy the influence of Mrs. 
P.'s labors. In doing this. Mr. M., in touching Mrs. P., is touching thousands who 
have been reached through Mrs. P.'s labors. Mr. M. pleads for the sympathy of 
the public, in view of the fact that his influence has been touched as a minister. 
Has Mrs. P., as a Christian lady known to thousands, or as a writer whose works 



68 



by thousands have been spread through the length 'and breadth of the land — has 
she no influence to sustain ? "We leave the Christian public to judge who has been 
the aggressor, and who has been wronged, to the amazement of thousands, during 
the past five years. W. C. P." 

I may now as briefly as possible review this part of the 
argument, gather up the fragments that nothing be lost, and 
inquire how the case stands. All this strife and contention 
have grown out of the Professor's earnest effort to prove one 
of his celebrated, or rather t notorious " eight propositions." 
Anxious to prove that Mrs. Palmer's sanctification is mere 
consecration, and desperately straitened for argument, he ob- 
served, " Besides, it could be shown, if necessary, that Mrs. Pal- 
mer once called her pastor, brother Creagh, to account, and 
wrote him a very singular letter (still extant), because he 
preached that entire consecration was (is ?) not entire sanctifica- 
tion, (as she had taught on page 9th of Entire Devotion)" 

In replying to this article in the Advocate and Journal, I said, 
" It is somewhat humiliating to refer to the absurd gossip of 
the Professor, about Mrs. Palmer's writing a letter to her pas- 
tor, 1 calling him to account because he preached that entire 
consecration was not entire sanctification. 1 There is no truth in 
this story? The Professor responds on this point, in his 11 Calm 
Review? with great emphasis, and shows the evidence upon 
which he relies to prove his assertion. 

1. He could prove that she wrote such a letter from the 
notoriety of the circumstance in the Allen street Church at the 
time ; saying, 11 It was notorious in the Allen street Church at the 
time? 

2. He affirmed that he could prove that she wrote such a 
letter, from the fact that 11 For some cause Dr. and Mrs. Palmer 
called for their certificates just then and left the Allen street Church? 

3. He affirmed he could prove she wrote such a letter, be- 
cause "Brother Creagh told him that such was the fact? 

4. He affirmed that Mrs. Palmer wrote such a letter, because 
" Brother Creagh read the letter to several persons, two of 
whom still live in this city, and will make affidavit to the fact. 
One is an elder in the M. E. Church." 

5. He affirms, " There is truth in the story," that Mrs. 
Palmer wrote the offensive letter to brother Creagh on the 
subject of sanctification, " for I have five letters in my pos- 



69 



session, signed Phebe Palmer, that abundantly prove my 
assertion." To give additional strength to his testimony, 
marked 5, he refers to Appendix B, where he reaffirms with 
respect to the letters, " I have five of them before me, signed 
Phebe Palmer, and only wish the seal of honor was removed 
that I might show the public where the truth lies." 

Let us now look at the testimony on these points, and see 
where the truth lies. 

1. He could prove that she wrote such a letter, from the 
notoriety of the circumstance in the Allen street Church when 
it occurred, saying, " It was notorious in the Allen street Church 
at the time." 

Let it be remembered that this letter, it is charged, " called 
brother Creagh to account for preaching that entire consecration 
is not entire salification" Do the witnesses prove this ? I 
will take them up in order. 

(1.) Professor Mattison himself, in his testimony, says not one 
word about the notoriety of the story (that Mrs. P. had written 
the letter in question to brother Creagh) in the Allen street 
Church. 

(2.) Brother Hayter says not a word on this point. The letter 
he heard read, and which without doubt referred to the brief 
dissatisfaction arising from the transfer of membership ±o Nor- 
folk street Church, was read privately, and nothing whatever 
is said by him of its notoriety in the Church. 

(3.) Brother Creagh does not seem to have communicated 
with brother Baker on this point. He said nothing whatever 
to him about a letter. 

(4.) Eev. John M. Eeid, the fourth witness called, proves 
nothing on this point. He makes no reference whatever to a 
letter of any kind. 

(5.) Brother Stout is equally silent on this point ; he says 
nothing about a letter. 

(6.) The five brethren who sign the sixth certificate speak of 
a letter indeed, but not of the letter. This is evident from the 
fact, that they say the letter was written after Dr. and Mrs. 
Palmer removed from Allen street Church. They refer, pro- 
bably, to the letter elsewhere published. But the letter charged 
upon Mrs. Palmer, and which the Professor is trying to prove, 



10 



was written, he says, before she removed from Allen street, 
and was one cause of her removal. Besides, thej do not even 
intimate that the letter to which they refer called brother 
Creagh to account for preaching that consecration is not entire 
sanctification, and that is the letter the Professor is trying to 
identify and prove. They may prove that Mrs. Palmer wrote 
a thousand letters to brother Creagh, but it will avail nothing 
unless they designate the one we have denied. Where is 
the proof that it was notorious in the Allen street Church at 
the time that she wrote this letter? The Professor must pro- 
duce this, or acknowledge his fault and retract his charge, or 
suffer shame. 

2. He affirmed that he could prove that she wrote such a 
letter, from the fact that "For some cause Dr. and Mrs. Palmer 
called for their certificates just then and left the Allen street Church." 

This statement is true ; they did for some cause, in the fall of 
1848, call for their certificates and leave the Allen street 
Church; but the " force of the Professor's logic" has not shown 
that this proves the writing of the letter in question. Others 
called for their certificates just then and left the Allen street 
Church and went to Norfolk street ; does this prove that they 
too wrote such a letter ? 

3. affirmed he could prove she wrote such a letter, be- 
cause -Brother Creagh told him such teas the fact." I suppose 
Mrs. Palmer's denial quite neutralizes the ipse dixit of the Pro- 
fessor. Besides, a man arraigned at the bar of justice, for af- 
firming of another, " I can prove him to be a thief," will hardly 
escape condemnation, by pleading in justification, "A person, 
now dead, told me so." This would hardly be considered 
proof. And in the face of the circumstances in this case, and 
the strong array of negative testimony produced, I think no 
one will judge the Professor has yet begun to prove his asser- 
tion. 

4. He affirmed that Mrs. Palmer wrote such a letter, because 
u Brother Creagh read the letter to several persons, two of whom 
still live in this city, and will make affidavit to the fact. One is an 
elder in the M. E. Church" 

To prove this he calls Elder Hayter, and he fairly tells what 
he knows, but the other £C person" is not called to the stand. 



71 



This circumstance is suspicious. The reason why he is not 
called may be easily inferred. Brother Hayter himself gives 
no support whatever to the charge. He says, indeed, that he 
heard a letter read, some six weeks after Dr. and Mrs. Palmer 
left Allen street Church, but his testimony gives no help to 
the Professor, in proving that while a member of Allen street 
she wrote a letter to brother Creagh, her pastor, calling him 
to account for preaching that entire consecration is not entire 
sanctification. Nor does the letter which brother Hayter heard, 
according to his statement, prove any such thing. 

5. He affirms there is truth in this story, 11 for I have five 
letters in my possession, signed Phebe Palmer, that abundantly 
prove my assertion" To make his affirmation still more em- 
phatic, and give it an appearance of authenticity, he adds an 
appendix, in which 'he reaffirms with respect to the letters, "I 
have five of them before me, signed Phebe Palmer, and only wish 
the seal of honor was removed that I might show the public where 
the truth lies." 

The "seal of honor" being removed, and learning that I had 
copies of the letters, he is compelled to show his hand, and 
publishes a part of one of them, which, however, has no refer- 
ence whatever to the charge he wants to prove — admitting, 
" the other four are of no interest either way /" Will the reader 
examine the letter, either the part he publishes /hole 
letter, and point out the word, or phrase, or allusion which 
sustains his accusation ? The boasted evidence of his five let- 
ters diminishes at last to this " lame and impotent conclusion.' 7 
When the Professor first said it could be proved, if necessary, 
that Mrs. Palmer wrote an offensive letter to her pastor, calling 
him to account because he preached in opposition to her views 
of sanctification, though he did not know it to be true, some 
mitigation of the offense may be charitably found in the pre- 
sumption that he had heard such a rumor, and wrote in haste. 
But what apology can charity suggest for the deliberate and 
solemn repetition of his charge ? He had obtained the letters, 
and had the same evidence before him that the reader now 
has, that they gave no countenance to his charge, yet he em- 
phatically reaffirms it, saying, u I have five letters in my pos- 
session, signed Phebe Palmer, that abundantly prove my 



72 



assertion," and "I only wish the seal of honor was removed, 
that I might show the public where the truth lies." Can such 
broad nakedness as this be covered by the^mantle of charity? 

But while I feel compelled thus to disapprove and condemn, 
I hope our readers will be just, and listen impartially to any 
plea which he may present to mitigate the verdict of public 
censure. 

THE PKOFESSION OF HOLINESS. 

In his 11 Calm Review" the Professor said, "Neither "Wesley, 
Watson, Benson, Clarke, Asbury, Fisk, Olin, nor any of our 
deceased bishops ever professed entire sanctincation, so far as 
appears." As a labor of love, I entered upon the vindication 
of the sainted dead, and so thoroughly exploded this reckless 
assertion, that the Professor has not a word to say in its 
defense. My rebuke, however, was not without a salutary 
effect. The Professor now says : "I do not mean to say that 
it is wrong to make such a profession ; for I do not believe it 
is. If a person has attained to that state, and feels it a privi- 
lege and duty to profess it in class-meetings, love-feasts, etc., 
and even more publicly, let him answer his own conscience, 
and I shall not object." " To the right kind of profession of 
holiness under proper circumstances, I have not now, and 
never had any objections." Well done ! Professor Mattison. 
This is-3a.ll Mrs. Palmer teaches, and as the Professor has now 
come upon the good old Wesleyan ground, there is no further 
need of argument or dispute on this point. The Professor, 
however, even while announcing his faith, attempts to push 
Mrs. Palmer from the ground she has always occupied ; for he 
says, " Mrs. Palmer insists that no person can retain the bless- 
ings of perfect love without professing it publicly and frequently 
and before promiscuous assemblies" This the Professor has 
been told a hundred times is a misrepresentation. He might 
as well afhrm that Mrs. Palmer teaches universal salvation, or 
the doctrines of Socialism., 

I made no misrepresentation of the Professor ; I quoted his 
language verbatim. This part of the Professor's answer needs 
no further comment, but I can not forbear expressing my 
decided disapprobation of the insertion in his pamphlet of a 
recent letter from Dr. Clark to Dr. Bond, in reply to an article 



73 



from Dr. Bangs on the " Life and Times of Hedding." To 
this letter Dr. Bangs replied in the Advocate, but his views are 
not given by Professor Mattison. And as the letter of Dr. 
Clark relates to a misunderstanding between him and Dr. 
Bangs, and is of course ex parte, simple justice demanded that 
if published by a third party, the reply should accompany it. 
This, however, is a controversial trick of the Professor, de- 
signed, if possible, to enlist in his behalf the sympathies of 
others unconnected with the question in debate. It is a signal 
of distress displayed, and an effort to form a "Holy Alliance," 
by the senseless outcry, that the person he assails is always an 
enemy of the public peace. If he can introduce into the dis- 
cussion the name of one unconnected with the dispute, he 
fancies he has made partisans of him and his friends. Thus 
the strong point with him in his assaults upon Mrs. Palmer, is 
his reference to the names of Brothers Eoberts and Spicer, Dr. 
Foster, and Bishop Hedding. Here also is the secret of his 
reference to the lamented Creagh and his much respected 
widow, which has led to the unpleasant revelations connected 
with their names. And now the effort is made to involve Dr. 
Clark in the controversy, but I have too much respect for his 
judgment and good taste to believe he will thank Professor 
Mattison for his impertinence. j/m^ 

With these remarks I may dismiss this point; th€tfSi|fessor, 
if he will abide by his own expressed views as above quoted, 
will stand on the same ground with Mrs. Palmer with respect 
to "profession," and if he will cease dressing up images of 
straw and baptizing them 11 Mrs. Palmer," in order to make 
battle with them, we shall hereafter have peace. 

DID THE PROFESSOR AGREE TO DISCUSS HIS EIGHT PROPOSITIONS 
IN A SINGLE ARTICLE? DID HE AGREE TO USE NO PERSON- 
ALITIES ? 

The Professor, with a slight qualification, denies both these 
propositions, saying : "I never agreed to either one or the 
other of these propositions, and Dr. Perry Jcnozvs I never did." 
He adds: "I join issue, therefore, distinctly upon the truth or 
falsehood of his charge, and will abide the result." 

Very well; u Dr. Perry" accepts this challenge" too, and 
will meet this issue. 



74 



DR. PERRY PROVES HIS CASE. 

To establish, my position I offer, 

L My own affirmation. 

II. Proof of the truth of the affirmation. 

1. Affirmation. I affirm, without any the slightest qualifica- 
tion, that Professor Mattison did, in the presence of Dr. Bond, 
in a plain, specific manner, promise to discuss all his eight pro- 
jDOsitions in a single article in the Christian Advocate and Jour- 
nal, and that he promised, in words equally specific and plain, 
to avoid all personal reflections towards Mrs. Palmer or myself. 
And I add, he would not have been allowed by the editor to 
write upon them at all, had he not promised to discuss them 
all, and avoid personal reflections. 

2. Proof. As proof of the truth of my affirmation I insert 
again the following letter from the late Dr. Bond : 

" No. 135 Hudson Steeet, New- Yoke, ) 
February 11, 1856. ) 

" Rev. Dr. Perry : 

" Dear Sir : In your note of the 8th instant, you request me to state my recol- 
lection of the facts in respect to certain declarations made by the Rev. Mr. Mattison, 
in his late pamphlet, entitled 'A Calm Review of Dr. Perry's late Article in the 
Christian Advocate and Journal? etc., etc. 
My recollections are : 

"1. Rev; Mr. Mattison did express a desire to discuss his eight propositions, 
contaiiM^pr an article in the Advocate and Journal seriatim, in as many articles as 
he should find necessary. To this I objected, as I had determined that the contro- 
versy should close, so far as the Advocate was concerned, with a single article 
more from each of the parties ; and I urged, as a reason for this, that the patrons 
of the paper were generally weary, if not very much afflicted by the personalities 
into which the controversy had degenerated. It was not, therefore, Dr. Perry, but 
myself) that required the eight propositions at the close of Rev. Mr. Mattison's 
communication in a former paper, should be discussed in his nest article, if dis- 
cussed at all. And it was the editor, also, and not Dr. Perry, who restricted Mr. 
Mattison to a single new communication on the subject in controversy ; and I 
clearly understood him to agree to embrace the eight propositions, as well as his 
limits would allow in a single article, although he could not discuss them all fully. 

1 ' 2. With respect to the agreement on the part of Mr. Mattison to avoid 1 per- 
sonalities' in the communication for the Advocate he proposed to write, the editor 
did make such a requirement of him. I explicitly stated to the Rev. Mr. Mattison, 
that many of the subscribers to the Advocate were offended by his personal remarks 
in respect to Mrs. Palmer — his strictures on her going so much abroad, neglecting 
her family, etc., which were considered both unjust and illiberal. That such 
remarks had nothing to do with the discussion of sanctification, and that if I should 
find any thing of the kind in his next communication, I should blot it out. Mr. Matti- 



son said he would avoid all personal reflections, fully agreeing with me that they 
were irrelevant to the real subject of controversy. 

" It remains for me to account for the admission of Eev. Mr. Mattison's commu- 
nication into the Advocate, notwithstanding the personal remarks it contained 
against you. His communication was taken to the office of the Advocate, as is usual, 
but late in the week. My assistant in the office brings the communications received 
there to me once a week, and reads them for my decision. But it so happened that 
we were compelled to anticipate the day of publication, Monday, and go to press 
on Saturday, as Tuesday following would be the 1st of January. My assistant was 
thus prevented from submitting the article to my decision, and I did not see it until 
it appeared in the Advocate. This I exceedingly regret, as the severe personal 
remarks upon you ought not to have been admitted. Their admission, however, 
made it necessary that you should be allowed to reply, justice requiring this at the 
hands of the editor. The above seems all that I have occasion to say in respect to 
your inquiries. 

"I remain, dear sir, your friend and brother in Christ, 

"Thomas E. Bond, Sen'r." 

This testimony I think quite conclusive, and in this the Pro- 
fessor agrees with me. He finds it therefore necessary to 
impeach the witness. 

I can not trust myself to say what I think of the illiberal 
and unfeeling remarks of the Professor upon Dr. Bond. The 
wealth of the world could not bribe a generous and noble 
spirit to utter words like these of an aged Christian, dying in 
the calm confidence of faith. Yet Professor Mattison writes 
thus, knowing that the physicians had pronounced Dr. Bond's 
recovery hopeless, and that he could not survive twenty-four 
hours. And two days after his funeral, while our community 
mourns his loss, and his aged and stricken widow looks to the 
Church he has served for sympathy and kindness in this her 
great sorrow, the Eev. Hiram Mattison, a minister of her own 
Church, distributes among the families of our people these 
aspersions upon her husband's memory. Let any person pos- 
sessing the ordinary feelings of humanity, or any correct sense 
of the decencies of life, read what he has written, with the 
recollection of these facts in his mind, and I can desire no 
sterner condemnation upon him than will be instinctively pro- 
nounced. 

Dr. Bond wrote his letter to me with his own hand and in 
my absence. In my letter to him he is simply requested to 
state his recollection of the conversation that took place at the 
interview between himself, Professor Mattison, and me, when 



76 

the arrangements were made for the publication of our articles. 
I furnished him a copy of the Professor's "Review" and asked 
him whether the statement made by Professor Mattison agreed 
with his recollection ; and I received from him in answer the 
letter published in my "Reply" If his testimony is ex parte in 
any sense, it is on the Professor's part, for Dr. Bond had Ms 
statement to refresh his memory, if it needed to be refreshed 
at all, while I gave him no suggestions whatever. But Dr. 
Bond needed suggestions from no one. His noble intellect was 
clear and unclouded to the last. Time had touched this kindly, 
and few men have lived to his period of life, whose mental facul- 
ties were less affected by age than his own. 

But the Professor also denies that he promised to avoid per- 
sonalities. He says the assertion that he made a pledge to this 
effect is all vapor. He never made, he says, any such agree- 
ment, or heard of it until he saw it in my article. When, how- 
ever, in my "Reply" I show by Dr. Bond's letter that such an 
agreement was distinctly made, he enters a special plea and 
says, if he did promise to avoid personalities, it was a promise 
not to use personal reflections towards Mrs. Palmer, and had 
no reference whatever to me. 

Kead what he says on this point, and mark the manner in 
which jmj attempts to excuse himself : 

' : But Dr. Peny affirms that I was under a promise not to use personalities, and 
brings forward Dr. Bond as a witness as follows : 

" 1 2. With respect to the agreement, on the part of Mr. Mattison, to avoid " per- 
sonalities" in the communication for the Advocate he proposed to write, the editor 
did make such a requirement of him. I explicitly stated to the Eev. Mr. Mattison, 
that many of the subscribers to the Advocate were offended by his personal remarks 
in respect to Mrs. Palmer — his strictures on her going so much abroad, neglecting 
her family, etc., which were considered both unjust and illiberal. That such re- 
marks had nothing to do with the discussion of sanctification, and that if I should 
find any thing of the kind in his next communication, I should blot it out. Mr. 
Mattison said he would avoid all personal reflections, fully agreeing with me that 
they were irrelevant to the real subject of controversy.' 

"Now it needs no great penetration or discernment to see where the error lies. 
Dr. Bond did say there should be no personalities in my article, in regard to Mrs. 
Palmer ; he did make the remarks he refers to about 4 some' (not ' many') of the 
subscribers to the Advocate, etc. ; he did specify certain remarks of mine respecting 
Mrs. Palmer and her affairs, (which I voluntarily recalled,) and I agreed with him 
that they had nothing to do with the argument, and ought not to have been written. 
He did say that 'if he should find anything of the hind' — that is, offensive personal 
allusions to Mrs. Palmer — in my next article, he should mark it out. I did say ' I 



would avoid all ' such personal reflections, L e., respecting- Mrs. Palmer ; which 
purpose I carried out to the letter. Such allusions are improper, and ought not to 
be indulged in, especially toward a lady. 

" But where, in all this, is the promise not to use 1 personalities ' toward Dr. 
Perry ? That is another and a distinct question. Dr. Bond testifies in the first 
three lines of the above extract, that he did require me to 'avoid personalities;' but 
when he comes, further on, to explain his first statement, it turns out that my 
agreement related to Mrs. Palmer alone. This is the ' upshot ' of the whole matter ; 
and Dr. Perry, seeing that Mrs. Palmer was safe from all future personalities from 
me, (as she was then, and will be hereafter,) thought it would be a clever trick in 
him to escape a merited castigation by hiding himself under her mantilla. But 
finding it insufficient to screen him fully, as he had hoped, he sets up the doleful 
jeremiad about personalities and breach of promise !" 

This, then, is the method by which he hopes to escape. 
First, when I allege that by his violent personal reflections he 
violates an express agreement, he responds in his "Review" 
page 25 : "This is all vapor. I never made any such agree- 
ment, or heard of it until I saw it in your article. I should 
have felt myself insulted by any such proposal." Driven, 
however, from this ground by the express testimony of Dr. 
Bond, he tries another expedient, and now confesses — "I did 
say I would avoid all such personal reflections, i. e., bespecting 
Mes. Palmeb. But where, in all this, is the promise not to 
use personalities toward Dr. Perry t That is another and a 
distinct question. Dr. Bond testifies in the first three lines of 
the above extract, that he did require me to avoid personalities, 
but when he comes further on to explain his first statement, it 
turns out that my agreement related to Mrs. Palmer alone.' 
Now these are the words of Professor Mattison on pages 52 
and 53 of his "Answer" and he wants his readers to believe 
that he thinks he speaks the truth ! He now says, in contra- 
diction to his statement in his "Review" " Dr. Bond testifies 
that he did require me to avoid personalities, hut when he comes 
further on to explain his first statement, it turns out that my agree- 
ment related to Mrs. Palmer alone I" Now can the reader believe 
that this is an undisguised misstatement ? . The plain truth, as 
I shall make it appear, is, that Dr. Bond, when he comes fur- 
ther on to explain his first statement, shows that his agreement 
does relate to me. Perhaps I ought not to call this assertion of 
the Professor an undisguised misstatement, for he does make 
an effort to disguise it by suppressing an important part of Dr. 



78 

Bond's letter. I reprint the last sentence printed by the Pro- 
fessor, to show the connection, and then add the part sup- 
pressed by him, which shows beyond all doubt that Dr. Bond 
referred to me : 

" Mr. Mattison said he would avoid all personal reflections, fully agreeing with me 
that they were irrelevant to the real subject of controversy. 

"It remains for me to account for the admission of Rev. Mr. Mattison's commu- 
nication into the Advocate, notwithstanding the personal remarks it contained 
against you. His communication was taken to the office of the Advocate, as is 
usual, but late in the week. My assistant in the office brings the communications 
received there to me once a week, and reads them for my decision. But it so hap- 
pened that we were compelled to anticipate the day of publication, Monday, and 
go to press on Saturday, as Tuesday following would be the 1st of January. My 
assistant was thus prevented from submitting the article to my decision, and I did 
not see it until it appeared in the Advocate. This I exceedingly regret, as the se- 
vere personal remarks upon you ought not to have been admitted. Their admission, 
however, made it necessary that you should be allowed to reply, justice requiring 
this at the hands of the editor. The above seems all that I have occasion to say 
in respect to your inquiries. 

"I remain, dear sir, your friend and brother in Christ, 

"Thomas E. Bond, Sen'r." 

After reading this, can there be any doubt of these two 
things ? — • 

1. That Dr. Bond states that the Professor's agreement to 
avoid personalities referred to me. 

2. That the Professor suppressed this part of the statement 
to conceal this fact. 

If the Professor's best friend does not admit that he is 
proved guilty on this issue, I will concede the whole contro- 
versy. Were I in his position, I should be thankful for a 
lady's "mantilla," or even for a fig-leaf, to hide my nakedness. 

After this terrible misstep, the Professor goes on to stultify 
himself still farther, by affirming that he will prove this repre- 
sentation is "the true state of the matter" over my own signa- 
ture. He then publishes a part of my note of acceptance, in 
which I state : 

******* "After these issues are disposed of, I shall perhaps have 
something to say respecting the tact and the gentlemanly and Christian courtesy 
with which the Professor's ' onslaughts' on Mrs. Palmer have been hitherto con- 
ducted. J. H. Perry. 

" Brooklyn, December 15, 1855." 



19 



He then attempts to show that this was an expressed deter- 
mination on my part to go into personalities in the discussion. 
I have elsewhere shown that this note expressly defers any such 
discussion until after the discussion on the propositions is 
finished, and even then speaks doubtfully on the point. It 
simply says "perhaps" — it may be so. But, however this may 
be, the subsequent agreement proves that if I first intended to 
do so, I had abandoned that purpose, and that the final stipu- 
lation, before a word of our controversy was on paper, was, 
" all personal reflections are to be avoided" 

IS MRS. PALMER A MAN OF WAR ? 

The Professor repeats his old story of Mrs. Palmer's manifold 
assaults upon Methodist preachers. There is nothing new in 
this, and having thoroughly exposed it, I need not repeat what 
I have before said. He connects with it an advertisement of 
the old tract, a supply of which, it seems, is still on hand, and 
his 11 Calm Review" the first of which he will send for three 
cents, and the latter for six and a quarter cents, to any part of 
the country. 

HAS THE PROFESSOR ASSAILED MRS. PALMER ? 
Says the Professor on this point : 

"Dr. Perry affirms that I have; and on pages 31 and 32 of his 'Reply, 1 enume- 
rates what he sets forward as fourteen different instances — a formidable list surely. 
But on looking over the list we find the ' assaults' to consist almost solely of charg- 
ing Mrs. Palmer with holding and teaching erroneous religious opinions." 

This the Professor thinks a very venial sin. He only charges 
her "with holding and teaching erroneous religious opinions!" 
The Professor should have said, " holding and teaching odious 
and offensive religious opinions, which she repudiates and dis- 
claims." It will be observed that the Professor only enume- 
rates eight out of the " fourteen different instances," and that 
these were all selected from a single number of the Northern 
Advocate; while I cited, in addition, on pages 31 and 33 of the 
u Reply" no less than six different numbers of the Northern 
Advocate and seven numbers of the Advocate and Journal, in 
which violent attacks were made upon her person and her doc- 



80 

trines. And jet the Professor has the unexampled assurance 
to say over and over again, " he has not assailed Mrs. P. — he 
only replies to her repeated attacks." 

VARIOUS SPECULATIONS. 

The subject of the Professor's various speculations I am will- 
ing at present to leave where it is, as it is, I think, very well 
understood. I have heard of various other of his speculations, 
some of which turned out better than his tract operations, and 
some not so well, if honor counts in these enterprises ; but my 
tract is swelling into a book, and I must restrain my pen, 
leaving some matter for future publications. It is sufficient to 
say that the West and the East are both full of his praise as a 
financier. His operations have not been limited to tracts and 
11 Calm Reviews" but have embraced works on Unitarianism, 
maps, and other things, a full history of which would be inter- 
esting if not profitable. 

The Professor is determined to keep my "Review" of Dr. 
Foster's sermon before the people, and he will certainly give 
this little brochure to immortality, by embalming it in his works. 
Knowing that I had unintentionally annoyed Dr. Foster by 
this 11 Review" I have studiously avoided alluding to it in the 
course of ihis controversy. I respected his character, his posi- 
tion, and his talents too much to drag his name into a disagree- 
able discussion between Professor Mattison and myself, but his 
friend is determined not to let the matter sleep. So be it. I 
shall not be unwilling on my own account to meet the "Revie w" 
or its consequences under any circumstances. 

The Professor says that my denial that I had ever advertised 
or sold my "Review" at any price, "is a quibble." By no 
means. It is as plain a statement of truth as I am capable of 
making. The book was printed at the request of parties who 
unite to share the expense, if any is incurred, but with no de- 
sire to profit by the publication. 

THAT OTHER QUESTION OF VERACITY. 

This question I supposed settled. I stated that the Professor 
had annoyed the editors of our periodicals by his communica- 
tions on the subject of Mrs. Palmer's theology, until they had 



81 



been compelled to refuse their insertion. The question was 
important only as showing the pertinacity with which he had 
pursued her. The Professor, in his "Review" declares this 
statement to be " all moonshine," and specially alludes to the 
Northern Advocate, as one paper in which he could have gone 
on at pleasure. In my "Reply" I cited fairly, as the reader 
will see by referring to pp. 34 and 35, what the editor himself 
said on the subject, and also quoted Professor Mattison's 
opinion, when writing to the editor, in the following words : 

" Mr. Editor : I had supposed, from certain circumstances that had come to my 
knowledge, that the subject of Mrs. Palmer's teachings and theology was definitely 
excluded from your columns ; and especially all articles of a controversial and 
personal character." 

I supposed so too, and so stated. According to the Pro- 
fessor's last statement, however, it was the others who were 
excluded, on account of the fury of their assaults upon him 
while he wrote so " mildly and kindly," that the editor, con- 
ceiving his articles an ornament to his columns, would have 
given him unlimited permission to continue. The exclusion, 
it would seem, was " a joint affair to save his opponents from 
personal mortification." Yerily the Professor is a man of ex- 
ceeding magnanimity ! It may be well to add here th$t this 
allegation was not made positively by me at first. I simply 
say, " He has annoyed generally the editors of our periodi- 
cals with his communications on this subject, until we think 
they have peremptorily refused to insert them." How clearly 
I have proved this, with regard to the Northern Advocate, the 
reader will judge. Not having, however, made the charge 
positively, I can not take the trouble, nor have I the time to 
search for proof elsewhere. I have only to say, finally, on this 
point, if the editors of our periodicals generally wish to orna- 
ment their columns with his articles on Mrs. Palmer, or would 
allow their admission, except under extraordinary circumstances, 
I can not admire their taste. 

Our attention is next called to a very grave matter, and it 
becomes me to treat it with becoming respect. The Professor 
entitles it : 

6 



82 



1; A GEiTUINE STULTIFICATION." 

He introduces the subject in this wise : 

!; In attempting to account for his sudden conversion or strange inconsistency, 
in opposing Mrs. Palmer's views in years past, and now advocating them, Dr. Perry 

says: 

" ' " A decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that I should declare 
the causes which impelled" me to write. I have been personally acquainted with 
Mrs. P. and her family for fourteen years, and I have passed nine years of my 
ministerial life within a mile of her residence, yet I have never attended one of her 
meetings. Truth requires me to confess, that though I recognized her in religious 
and social circles as a lady of intelligence, unblemished reputation, and blameless 
life, yet I entertained stronger prejudices against her and her teachings than I am 
accustomed to feel towards any one. This prejudice was chiefly occasioned by 
reading the writings of Professor Mattison, the truth of which I had no reason to 
doubt' 

i; He then goes on to say, virtually, that he recently ascertained that I am not 
reliable for truth and veracity ; and on reading Mrs. Palmer's books (which he had 
never read before), he became a convert to her system. This is the substance of his 
explanation." 

It is humiliating and painful to observe in any one, and es- 
pecially in a minister of the Gospel, such an apparent disregard 
for truth as is here exhibited. If the Professor did not know 
he here stated an untruth, he is certainly irresponsible for any 
thing he has said or may say ; and I am more than ever con- 
vinced of the fact of some mal-adjustment or infirmity in his 
moral machinery. He here represents me as virtually saying, 
that Ci on reading Mrs. Palmer's books I became a convert to 
her system." JSTow a convert is understood to be one who re- 
nounces one system and embraces another, and the word can 
have no other meaning in this connection. But no one who 
has read this controversy can find in it a word or allusion from 
me to justify this assertion. That I have written in opposition 
to Professor Mattison is perhaps understood, and it is just as 
plain that my whole object from the first has been to show, that 
Mrs. Palmer believes and teaches the same identical doctrine 
that Professor Mattison says he believes and teaches, and the 
same precisely that the whole array of Methodistic writers be- 
lieve and teach, from John Wesley down to the present day. 
Yet Professor Mattison says, apparently without hesitation or 
a single twinge of conscience, and certainly without a blush, 
" Dr. Perry goes on to say, virtually, * * * that on read- 



83 



ing Mrs. Palmer's books he became a convert to her system J 1 No, 
I have become no convert or pervert, I stand on the Wesley an 
platform, and believe the "Wesleyan doctrines with all my heart, 
and here I mean to stand, and these I mean to believe. 

How can the Professor make such reckless and unscrupulous 
assertions ? " What ails the man ? Has he lost his reason, or 
what ?" 

The Professor, after stating that I professed to he a convert to 
Mrs. Palmer's system, makes himself merry after his fashion, by 
an attempt to show my inconsistency, in pretending that four- 
teen years ago I had been prejudiced against Mrs. Palmer, by 
his writings, when he only began to write against her in 1851. 
It is not very clear what the logical Professor is driving at. 
I had stated that for fourteen years past I was prejudiced 
against Mrs. Palmer and what I understood to be her doctrines, 
and was still prejudiced up to a recent period, when I first read 
her books ; that Professor Mattison had been writing against 
her since 1852, and that his writings had been the chief agent 
in " occasioning' 1 the state of feeling with which I undertook 
the examination of her works. 

This is the substance of my statement, and no one can, I 
think, misunderstand me. In my answer to the Professor's 
article in the Advocate, I used the following language : 

" I have been personally acquainted with Mrs. P. and her family for fourteen 
years, and I have passed nine years of my ministerial life within a mile of her resi- 
dence, yet I have never attended one of her meetings. Truth requires me to con- 
fess, that though I recognized her in religious and social circles as a lady of intelli- 
gence, of unblemished reputation, and blameless life, yet I entertained stronger 
prejudices against her and her teachings than I am accustomed to feel toward any 
one. This prejudice was chiefly occasioned by reading the writings of Professor 
Mattison, the truth of which I had no reason to doubt." 

I had stated the date of Professor Mattison's first assault 
upon Mrs. Palmer, and admitted my prejudice to have been 
earlier than his writing, by some ten or twelve years. I could 
not therefore design to say my prejudices were first occasioned 
by reading his writings, nor do I say this. My meaning was, 
that my prejudices were greatly deepened or strengthened by 
reading his articles. It is literally true that the prejudice I 
entertained after reading his articles was chiefly occasioned by 



84 



that reading. Before that period, though much prejudiced, 
my prejudices were of a general character, and indefinite in 
their nature, but afterwards they took a definite shape and 
became more intense. If, however, the words 11 greatly strength- 
ened" were substituted for the phrase " chiefly occasioned" in 
the passage above, my meaning would be clearer, and less 
likely to be carped at. 

We must not however forget to notice the Professor's skillful 

"DILEMMA." 

" Dr. Perry was either opposed to Mrs. Palmer's peculiar views, or he was not. 
If he was, why attempt to deny it by denying the proofs of it which I adduced ? 
If he ivas not, why assert that he was, and that my writings were the cause of it ? 
Take your choice, Doctor, for there is no alternative ; you must he impaled upon 
one horn or the other of this dilemma." 

The horns of this "dilemma" are neither sharp nor danger- 
ous. I have not at any time denied any truthful proofs the 
Professor may have brought to show that I felt opposed to 
Mrs. Palmer's teachings, believing them to be other than they 
really are ; nor have I designed to say that I received my first 
prejudices from Professor Mattison's writings ; indeed I can 
not be so understood by any fair interpretation, for I give the 
date of the commencement of my prejudice and the beginning 
of Professor Mattison's warfare, and the first is earlier than the 
]ast by nearly a dozen years. My position on this subject, if it 
needs proof, is shown by the following statement. The young 
brother who supplied it, not clearly perceiving the point of his 
own testimony, sent the certificate, it will be perceived, to the 
Professor, but I am sure he will not object to figuring on both 
sides of the controversy, and I therefore indulge a prurient 
ambition and permit " Young America" to fire a double-bar- 
relled gun. It is loaded with a blank cartridge, but it makes 
a report, which is the principal thing : 

" Brooklyn, March 4, 1856. 

"Dear Brother Mattison: 

"A member of the New-York East Conference heard Dr. Perry preach at a camp- 
meeting, in the summer of 1850, on the subject of Christian perfection. After the 
sermon he complimented Dr. Perry, and especially expressed his gratification at his 
statement of the doctrine, inasmuch as it avoided some of the unfortunate errors 



85 



in Mrs. Palmer's teachings. To which Dr. P. replied, that he preached that dis- 
course with special reference to such errors. And you may say that Dr. Perry 
knows who is intended, since the minister referred to refreshed his memory only 
yesterday regarding this reminiscence." 

This, it will be perceived, is in entire harmony with my 
statement. It is worthy of remark, too, that the writer vouches 
for my orthodoxy at that period, as he congratulated me upon 
avoiding " some of the unfortunate errors in Mrs. Palmer's 
teachings." He does not say I alluded to these " unfortunate 
errors," but that I avoided them in preaching. " Dr. Perry 
replied that he preached with special reference to such errors." 
Exactly, and probably Dr. Perry still avoids " such errors," and 
preaches with special reference to them, whoever may hold them. 
Is this the Professor's " genuine stultification"? 

THE PROFESSOR WRITES "NOTES BY THE WAT." 

This department of the Professor's labor needs very little 
reply. It is occupied with low personalities, to which self- 
respect, if no better motive, forbids me to reply. I shall no- 
tice a few points, and in doing so will follow the numbering of 
his paragraphs. 

1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are not worthy of any particular notice. 

6. We will have no further dispute on this point. I gave 
an example of unpardonable misrepresentation of Mrs. Palmer's 
views on the part of the Professor, and duly exposed and 
chastised him for it. (See Reply, pp. 8 and 9.) His writhing 
under punishment shows that he is mortified to be exposed, 
though not ashamed to sin. 

7. In this paragraph the Professor employs the same form 
of speech as I used in my note accepting his challenge: "After 
these issues are disposed of, I shall perhaps have something to 
say respecting the tact and gentlemanly and Christian courtesy 
with which the Professor's onslaughts on Mrs. Palmer have 
been hitherto conducted." The Professor has affirmed that by 
this form of speech, " I shall perhaps have something to say," 
etc., I positively declare my intention to employ personalities 
in the controversy, and that, therefore, he is excusable for an- 
ticipating me. 

Now he affirms of an anonymous writer in the Advocate, it 



86 



is " perhaps Dr. Perry," and according to his own interpreta- 
tion of this form of speech, this is a positive affirmation. Does 
he wish to be so understood ? 

The dilemma in which the Professor places himself is palpa- 
ble, and has sharp horns. 

If he means to affirm that Dr. Perry wrote the article to 
which he refers, then he means to affirm what is not true ; if 
he means simply to imply a possibility, then he knows this is 
all that is meant by my note of acceptance. Will he select the 
least painful alternative, and submit to be impaled ? 

I next invite attention to the following extract ; there is an 
audacity about it that has seldom been equalled : 

" But did not Dr. Perry once write what he -would not care to have reproduced ? 
The editor of the Christian Advocate and Journal was obliged to leave town, or 
something of the sort, and, as Dr. Perry had been for years hanging around a cer- 
tain 'chair,' his fingers itching to write an ' editorial,' the editor told him he might 
try his hand at one. So Dr. Perry went at it. "When the next paper came out. 
behold a fillibustering article on Cuba, brimful of courage and war, with exhorta- 
tions to immediate annexation or conquest. I have not the article at hand, but 
such are my recollections of it. On returning, the editor found a tempest about his 
ears, and, to allay the storm Dr. Perry had raised, was obliged to ' own up' to hav- 
ing employed an unfortunate substitute pro tern., and to recant and repudiate the 
editorial. This was certainly sensible ; for had its principles and spirit been carried 
out, Cuba would long ago have been conquered, annexed to the Union, and cut up 
into slave States. 

"We may hereafter republish this virgin editorial, as a specimen of Dr. Perry's 
abilities in that line. Meanwhile, we would suggest that, if Dr. Perry should suc- 
ceed in his efforts to get control of the Christian Advocate and Journal, it would 
be best to elect an associate editor, with power to retract and repudiate, every alter, 
nate week, the editorials of Dr. Perry for the week preceding. In this way the 
paper might do but little harm, if it did no good." 

Let it be remembered, that the writer of this is not a pot- 
house politician, but a Methodist minister and a member elect 
of the next General Conference. I make no comments on the 
taste or spirit of the extract, but call attention to the question 
of its truth. I allude to these points, namely : 

1. "When the next paper came out, behold a fillibustering 
article on Cuba, brimful of courage and war, with exhortations 
to immediate annexation or conquest." 

2. " On returning, the editor found a tempest about his ears, 
and to allay the storm Dr. Perry had raised, was obliged to 



87 



' own up' to having employed an unfortunate substitute pro 
tern., and to recant and repudiate the editorial." 

3. " Had the principles and spirit of the editorial been carried 
out, Cuba would long ago have been conquered, annexed to the 
Union, and cut up into slave States." 

THE EDITORIAL CAN SPEAK FOR ITSELF. 

Here it is : 

" CUBAN AFFAIRS. 

" The recent effort to revolutionize Cuba has resulted in the signal discomfiture 
of the expedition under G-eneral Lopez. The torch of war has been quenched in 
blood, and the leader and hundreds of his followers have died in the vain attempt 
to wrest the ' Queen of the Antilles' from Spanish domination. 

"Since the descent at Bahia Honda, such conflicting statements have been pub- 
lished from the seat of war, that the most intense anxiety has been kept alive among 
both the friends and enemies of the expedition ; and until the arrival of the Empire 
City on Saturday last, no authentic information had been received, though tele- 
graphic dispatches from New- Orleans on the day previous had prepared the public 
mind for sad intelligence. 

"It is generally conceded that Lopez was successful in several sanguinary en- 
counters with the overwhelming numbers of the Spanish soldiery ; but not being 
joined, as he had expected, by any large bodies of the native population, his own 
followers were reduced by the chances of battle, until the few that remained, hope- 
less of success, abandoned his standard, and left him to wander in the interior 
wounded and alone. Pressed by hunger, and exhausted with fatigue, he solicited 
food at a farm-house, and afterwards desired permission to lie down. "While asleep, 
he was bound and made prisoner. The news of his capture excited transports of 
joy among the partisans of the government. He was removed to Havana, where 
high jubilee was held for several days ; flags displayed, guns fired, buildings illu- 
minated, and torch-light processions, gave evidence of the importance of his capture 
in the estimation of the authorities. The news of his capture reached Havana on 
the 30th ultimo ; and on the 1st inst., at 1 o'clock in the morning, he was executed 
in that city. He is reported to have died with much composure and dignity. His 
last words were, ' I die for my beloved Cuba.' 

"We are not, perhaps, in possession of data sufficient to justify a positive 
opinion of the character of the enterprise, which has resulted so disastrously ; yet 
we can not forbear speaking a word in deprecation of the utter and sweeping con- 
demnation of the gallant dead. It has been said, 1 an unsuccessful revolution is a 
rebellion, and a successful rebellion is a revolution.' The principle involved in this 
apothegm is, doubtless, that by which the popular mind is too often guided in judg- 
ing of the character of the struggles which occur to change existing forms of gov- 
ernment. But the right is not invalidated by failure, nor the wrong sanctified by 
success. It is mortifying to observe the course of some of the public prints on this 
subject. "While the success of the expedition under Lopez was problematical, they 
were extremely cautious of condemning it, but as its prospects grew darker, their 
indignation increased until the epithets of pirates, freebooters, and banditti were 
freely lavished upon the leader and his followers. Let us, however, speak as kindly 



88 



as truth will permit of the dead. If the invaders of Cuba erred, they have fear- 
fully expiated their error. And judging by principles recognized as sound on this 
side of the Atlantic, it is not clear that Lopez and his followers deserved the epi- 
thets of pirates and banditti. 

" The latter may have been, nay, doubtless were deceived, with respect to the 
state of feeling among the inhabitants of Cuba, but their motives were probably 
pure and disinterested. They perilled their lives, to aid, as they supposed, an op- 
pressed people struggling to be free. The smallness of the force that landed in 
Cuba, sending away the vessel that carried them, and thus depriving themselves of 
all means of escape from the island, confirms this view. That the object of the in- 
vaders was plunder and robbery, we can not believe. The hapless Crittenden we 
knew in other days, as a gentleman of transparent integrity and lofty sense of 
honor, and we- can never believe he would become the leader or companion of rob- 
bers by sea or land. Neither can these epithets be justly applied to Lopez. He 
did not certainly intentionally deceive his followers. He was doubtless as painfully 
disappointed as any of his followers, at not receiving a cordial and earnest support 
from the Creoles of Cuba. A Spaniard by birth, and long a resident of the island, 
he was intimately acquainted both with the unmitigated tyranny of the govern- 
ment and the dissatisfaction of the people ; and in his earnest efforts to carry the 
blessings of freedom to his countrymen, he deserves the praise, not the execrations, 
of the free. 

' ; Let us not be misunderstood We believe that the people possess the right to 
change their form of government when, in their estimation, it becomes too oppres- 
sive and burdensome. And if the majority of the inhabitants of Cuba desired to 
throw off the Spanish yoke, then was Lopez not a pirate, but a martyr to liberty. 

" The barbarous policy pursued by the authorities of the island toward the prison- 
ers, must have a fatal reaction. The worse than useless massacre of captives will 
be like the sowing of the dragon's teeth ; and their blood crying from the ground, 
will demand vengeance from their countrymen and friends. Though it is doubtful 
whether the union of these States could survive the annexation of Cuba, yet we 
think her independence of Spanish rule is a question of time only. As certain as 
the future becomes the present, Cuba will be free ; and from the grave of Lopez 
and his followers will spring the armed bands that shall strike off her fetters, and 
proclaim her emancipation." 

It will be seen that the article itself is of a character entirely 
different from the representation of the Professor. Yet he 
prudently saves himself from the charge of intentional falsehood 
by the introduction of the saving clause, u l have not the article 
at hand, but such are my recollections of it" How far this should 
save him from censure, our readers will judge. By his own 
admission, he says of this article what he does not know to be 
true ; and it turns out in this case, as in his affirmation about 
Mrs. Palmer's letter, that the facts when they come out contra- 
dict his statement. To affirm positively what we do not 
know to be true, is only a shade less criminal than to speak 
what we know to be false. There is also misrepresentation 



89 



in the report of the "tempest raised" by the article, as 
well as in the statement that the editor repudiated and retracted 
it. It happened that when I wrote the article in question, I 
had overlooked a paragraph written by Dr. Peck some weeks 
before, in which he had expressed the conservative and perhaps 
correct opinion that the enterprise of General Lopez was an 
unjustifiable invasion. Had I observed this article, I should 
of course have avoided expressing an opposite opinion, or even 
seeming to question its principles and statements. Nor does 
the article written by me express an opposite opinion. The 
invasion is not justified; nor does it contain any exhortation to 
invasion or annexation. On the contrary, the doubt is ex- 
pressed whether the union of these States could survive such 
annexation. The article states that the character of the enter- 
prise could not yet be determined, for want of sufficient data, 
and my conviction that the men who engaged in it had been 
deceived with respect to public opinion in Cuba. Dr. Peck 
thought it necessary to explain that on this point he might not 
seem to be inconsistent ; but I do not think Dr. Peck made any 
" retraction." 

The article needs no vindication from me, and I prove by its 
publication that I am not unwilling to have it reproduced. Its 
principles are sound, and I still abide by them, and shall always 
be willing to meet any responsibility connected with their pub- 
lication. 

On page 76, the Professor again gives us a rehash of Allen- 
street affairs. He is not yet quite satisfied with his position in 
connection with the five letters in his possession, that abund- 
antly prove that Mrs. Palmer wrote a letter to brother Creagh, 
censuring him very severely for preaching that consecration is 
not sanctification. He tries to argue that brother Creagh 
preached one sermon on sanctification in the Allen-street Church 
before Dr. and Mrs. Palmer left, if the series was preached 
afterwards. If this were admitted, it does not help the Pro- 
fessor. He affirmed, not that brother Creagh had preached on 
that subject before they left Allen street, but that Mrs. Palmer 
had written a letter censuring him for preaching in opposition 
to her views on a specific point. This I denied, and this the 
Professor affirmed repeatedly he could prove in many ways, 
and among others by five letters in his possession. 



90 



The Professor also alludes to the statement of Mrs. Creagh, 
and affirms again that I wrote it, and arranged and colored it as 
I wished. I have said I did not write the statement at all. The 
whole of my connection with the note may be explained in few 
words, and perhaps it may not be amiss to make the explanation. 
Dr. Palmer, as he states, wrote the note. I was not even present 
when it was written. But previously, in conversation with Dr. 
Palmer on several topics, I inquired whether Mrs. Creagh would 
not be willing to state the contents of the letters she had given 
to Professor Mattison. He said he had no doubt that she would. 
Upon receiving this reply, I was very desirous to obtain a state- 
ment from her. I frankly acknowledge that this point in the 
case gave me more trouble than any other. And Professor 
Mattison so positively affirmed the existence of the letter — de- 
claring that he had five letters in his possession that abundantly 
proved the truth of his story — that his boldness somewhat stag- 
gered me. I hesitated to believe that his statement was sheer 
bravado, yet Mrs. Palmer as positively affirmed that she had 
never written on that subject to brother Creagh at any time. 
Discerning some light in this direction, I advised the Doctor to 
go and see Mrs. Creagh. To be certain that the questions I 
wished him to ask were not forgotten, I took a slip of paper 
and made some memoranda in the following form : 

" Ask Mrs. Creagh. : 

"1. Whether she has given any letters to Prof. M. ? 

li 2. What do they contain ? 

" 3. Did she give them willingly ?" 

It should be added, that when the Doctor left with this paper, 
I was doubtful whether Mrs. Creagh would be asked to give 
any written statement whatever, that contingency depending 
upon the nature of her answers to the verbal inquiries. I heard 
nothing further on the subject until the statement, a small part 
only of which I published, was brought to me. This is all the 
light I have on the point, and by comparing Dr. Palmer's letter 
with these explanations, the reader can perhaps determine who 
wrote the statement. But the truth of the statement was then 
far more important than any other question. Mrs. Creagh ad- 
mits this substantially. She was, however, says the Professor, 
" so distrustful of her memory as to the precise time when the 



91 



series of sermons was delivered, that she says nothing upon 
that point in her voluntary testimony." But scores of men, he 
says, would testify positively that one or more sermons on the 
subject of sanctification were preached by brother Creagh before 
Dr. and Mrs. Palmer left Allen street. I have elsewhere given 
brother Shaffer's certificate on this subject, and I have no doubt 
that I could obtain in the Allen -street congregation one hun- 
dred names to confirm it ; but again I say, this is not the ques- 
tion in dispute, and I hope the reader will not suffer his mind 
to be befogged by the Professor's multiplied assumptions and 
assertions respecting irrelevant matter. The question is, Did 
Mrs. Palmer write the letter to brother Creagh, censuring him 
for preaching that consecration is not sanctification ? 

11. With regard to " pitching into Bishop Janes," the Pro- 
fessor gro ws ashamed of his own elegant extracts, and disowns 
his own child, saying, "he knows not to what I allude and 
again, " I know nothing of the kind any where." On page 30, 
Reply, he will find a reference to the place where this classic 
phrase is employed. 

12. Under this head there is nothing to which I can descend 
to reply, except some remarks under subdivision (4). He is 
there attempting, in his own inimitable manner, to account for 
my having accepted his challenge, and says that it was because 
he endorsed Dr. Foster's sermon in a communication in the 
Northern Advocate. This is not true; I judge or condemn no 
man for opinion's sake ; but he comes at this point nearer to 
one of my reasons than the reader may imagine. In that com- 
munication to the Northern Advocate, he seemed to me to be 
clearly guilty of suggesting a falsehood. Of this I complained 
to him, but he treated the complaint lightly ; and while he 
acknowledged my complaint to be just, refused to correct his 
error. This is one of the reasons that induced me to say in 
the Advocate : 

"Kecently, however, some facts have reached me which have produced in my 
mind the unwilling conviction that he is sometimes so unhappy in the choice of 
words, as, undesignedly, perhaps, on his own part, to suggest what is not true, when 
such a suggestion feeds a prejudice, or serves to support some favorite opinion." 

13. At last the Professor admits that the letter he has printed 
" does not call or other Creagh to account for his teachings on the 



subject of holiness? Yet this is one of the five letters which he 
solemnly affirmed, over and over again, did " abundantly prove 
this very thing," while the other four, he says, are unimportant. 
Well may he cry out in his despair : " Where then is this let- 
ter ?" and echo answers, Where ? And where too, we may 
ask, is the philosopher's stone, and the fabled elixir of life, and 
where, alas ! the honor of our valiant Professor ? 

On p. 80 of his Answer, the Professor give us what he calls 

"A ROW OF SPIKED ORDNANCE." 

A soldier spikes his enemy's guns, except when about to 
abandon his position, and he wishes to render his own artillery 
useless to his adversary. The reader will perceive that this 
array of artillery on the part of the Professor consists of alle- 
gations or assertions on his part, to which he says I have not 
replied. These then are his own guns which he has spiked, 
and as this is the last act of a garrison before hauling down its 
flag and asking quarter, it may be presumed the gallant Pro- 
fessor gives up the contest at least with this battery. But he 
may be assured that these were all Quaker guns at first ; they 
have done no harm, and none but the most inexperienced 
would have apprehended danger from their fire. 

" FRUITS OF THE NEW STYLE OF HOLINESS." 

The Professor prints a letter without signature or date under 
this caption, and if it is not entirely a fancy sketch of his own, 
the author is a worthy yoke-fellow of Professor Mattison. 
" Birds of a feather flock together." " my soul, come not 
thou into their secret ; unto their assembly, mine honor, be not 
thou united." 

"ANOTHER VERY SINGULAR LETTER FROM SISTER PALMER." 

The letter published under this head is entirely unconnected 
with the controversy. With every reader whose good opinion 
is to be valued, the letter will do more harm to him to whom 
it is addressed, and to him who published it, than it can do to 
the writer. 



93 



FACTS WHICH WILL BE REMEMBERED. 

On the 85th page of his Answer, and elsewhere, the Professor 
takes up a lamentation over the circulation of my Reply, and 
the expense he incurs in printing. 

" Caesar hath wept; 
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff." — Sliaks. 

Eespecting his first complaint, the Reply was sent only where 
he told me he should send his Review ; with respect to the last, I 
trust his appeal will not be unheeded by our lay brethren who 
sympathize with and wish him success in his struggle. It is 
not very manly, after his long and persevering pursuit of Mrs. 
Palmer, to make this whimpering outcry the moment an anta- 
gonist interposes who is alike invulnerable to his abuse and his 
arguments. "My only wish is to shield my reputation," says 
the Professor, "from the aspersions cast upon it by Dr. Perry, 
and to stand where I stood before this effort to crush me was 
commenced — as an honest man before Grod and my brethren." 
No one has aspersed his reputation. He has committed moral 
suicide. He has digged a pit and fallen into it himself. His 
sins have found him out. His wrong doing has been exposed. 
I have held a mirror before him, and he is startled by a sight 
of his own features. 

"Who commenced this war ? Not I, but Professor Mattison. 
Who commenced the work of personal vituperation ? Not I, 
but Professor Mattison. Unsatisfied with the result in the 
Advocate, who resorted to a war of pamphlets? Not I, but 
Professor Mattison. 

CONCLUSION. 

And now how stands the case ? "What progress has the 
Professor made in supporting his " eight propositions " which 
he challenged any one to discuss with him "calmly and 
kindly" ? 

The answer must still be, the first four he has supported very 
feebly, the last four he has totally abandoned. 

Should Professor Mattison, in replying to this pamphlet, 
confine himself to the subject matter before him, and avoid the 



94 



introduction of new topics, he can scarcely say any thing that 
will draw an answer from rne ; but if he lashes out wildly, and 
drags in matters not pertinent to the issue, I can promise 
nothing for the future. No threats of appeal to ecclesiastical 
or civil tribunals have any terrors for me ; the courts are open 
and the way clear, let him make his election and begin the 
contest. Though I profess in these latter days to be a man of 
peace, yet I have not espoused the doctrines of non-resistance, 
and I will not permit the Professor to assail me with impunity. 
Strong arguments and kind words go far, but misrepresenta- 
tion, detraction, and personal abuse are entirely lost upon me. 

While I thus speak, I offer the olive-branch to the Professor, 
and tender him terms of peace. Controversy has no charms 
for me, and this dispute especially has taken such a tone that 
it must be not only distasteful but exceedingly painful to the 
better class of our readers. ISTo further benefit can arise from 
its continuance. Why then should we pursue it? Humanity 
has many infirmities ; let us be charitable and mutually forgive. 
If we can not harmonize in opinion, let us agree to disagree. 
Leave Mrs. Palmer to pursue her mission unmolested, and 

" While yet we live, scarce one short hour perhaps, 
Between us two let there be peace." 



APPENDIX 



I have reserved for an Appendix some remarks on a topic which has, for 
two reasons, been touched lightly in the body of this pamphlet. First, 
because it does not properly belong to the discussion, and secondly, because 
of its connection with the name of a deceased preacher, whose memory is 
highly revered in the Church. I allude to the attempt of Professor Matti- 
son to show that hostility existed between Brother Creagh and Mrs. Palmer 
on account of a difference of opinion respecting the doctrine of holiness, 
while the former was the pastor and the latter a member of the Allen street 
Church. Had Professor Mattison proved that Brother Creagh differed with 
Mrs. Palmer on some theoretical points, or even on the very point alleged 
by him, it could not have aided him in his argument, for the question dis- 
cussed by us was limited to the teaching of her works. Why, then, are we 
compelled by the course pursued by the Professor to dispute so much about 
Brother Creagh? And why is his bereaved widow brought forward so 
prominently in this controversy ? And why, too, is Mrs. Palmer so obsti- 
nately represented as assaulting this quiet and peaceable man of God ? And 
we may inquire, too, why persons who were members of Allen street 
Church at the time Dr. and Mrs. Palmer left that church and went to Nor- 
folk street, are sought out, and brought to certify to irrelevant topics, 
mainly to show that ill-feeling existed between Brother Creagh and Dr. 
and Mrs. Palmer ? Is it thought that this reflects honor upon the cause of 
Christ or the memory of his servant, or is it done solely to damage the 
reputation of Mrs. Palmer, and endeavor to hinder the spreading of holiness 
over these lands ? Those who take part in this controversy will not admit 
this, for they doubtless think the cause of truth demanded what they have 
done. But we were not disputing about what Brother Creagh thought 
of Mrs. Palmer's theology, but about her writing him a very singular letter 
calling him to account for preaching in opposition to her views. Which 
one of the brethren testifies on this point, or which one knows that such a 
letter was written ? Not one. Why, then, connect themselves with the 
controversy at all ? I am sure the slight misunderstanding between these 
parties had better be left to sleep. It must be greatly exaggerated. The 



96 



human memory, too, is treacherous and imperfect. He is not the friend of 
Brother Creagh who agitates this subject. The matter between Brother 
Creagh and Dr. and Mrs. Palmer was a trivial affair, and though somewhat 
painful for the short time it lasted, was soon explained and reconciled, and 
was not discreditable to either party. Entire harmony was restored between 
them, and the most cordial good feeling and endearing Christian friendship 
was maintained between them until Brother Creagh's death. That Brother 
Creagh had entire confidence in Mrs. Palmer, and highly valued her labors 
in the cause of holiness, is capable of the most conclusive proof ; and if it is 
desired, it could be proved from his own letters and from the testimony of 
unimpeachable living witnesses. On this point Professor Mattison is mis- 
taken, and both he and his witnesses must unwittingly give too much 
importance to a transient and apparently trivial matter. I presume a hun- 
dred witnesses can be brought to prove that Brother Creagh was accustomed 
to attend the meetings at Dr. Palmer's, and to visit very frequently at his 
house up to the time of his decease. Is it wise or right to revive the 
remembrance of this transient difficulty which Brother Creagh himself 
settled, and now magnify its importance ? 

On this general subject I publish the following letters. Let all lovers of 
peace and friends of the Church read them, and then decide whether the 
discussion on this point has not proceeded too far already. The first letter 
is from Rev. S. W. Law, a member of the New- York East Conference. It 
came to me without solicitation. Those who remember the discussion con- 
nected with Brother Law's admission to our Conference, will understand 
that he has no particular partialities in favor of Mrs. Palmer's views, but 
has heretofore differed from her opinions on some points. He is, however, 
a man of devoted piety and cultivated intellect, and wherever he is known 
his statements will command the most implicit confidence. Brother Law 
also reminds me of the part taken by Brother Creagh in the trial of an ap- 
peal case at the Conference at Hartford. I well recollect — and so will the 
members of the Conference, and perhaps the Bishop in the chair — Brother 
Creagh's earnest and eloquent and manly eulogium pronounced upon Mrs. 
Palmer on that occasion. This occurred as late as 1852, and it is now cruel 
to attempt to make the impression that he was not sincere in his private 
correspondence with Mrs. Palmer ; in his frequent and friendly social visits 
at her house ; in his unqualified commendations in public and private of her 
Christian character and her labors in the cause of holiness. 

LETTER FROM RET. S. "W. LAW. 

" TFilliamsburgh, March 31st, 1856. 

"To Rev. James H. Perry, D.D. : 

"Dear Sir : I have just been reading your 1 Reply to Professor Mattison's Calm 
Review,' and his 'Answer' to it. I have no desire, of course, to connect myself 
in any way with the controversy between you, and shall not in this note express 
any opinion in regard to its general merits. There is, however, one point at issue 
on which I wish to say a word, and I shall do so because I think truth and fairness 
require it, and because it may contribute a little to the reconciliation of apparent 
discrepancies. 



97 



" I refer in this remark to the alleged difficulty between Mrs. Palmer and the la- 
mented Bartholomew Creag-h, while the latter was pastor of the Allen street 
Church, in New- York. That there may have been some difficulty of the kind al- 
luded to, I do not intend now to question ; but that it had anything of the import- 
ance Professor Mattison ascribes to it, or produced even the ' temporary alienation' 
you seem yourself to admit, I do not, and can not believe. My reason is, that I 
knew Brother Creagh well, enjoyed both before and after his labors in Allen street 
several years of intimate and endearing friendship with him, and frequently heard 
him speak of Mrs. Palmer in a manner that will not admit this conclusion. Two 
years after leaving Allen street he was appointed to the pastoral charge of the South 
Fifth street Church in this city ; and it so happened, in the order of Divine Provi- 
dence, that I came here that same spring myself, and took a residence near to him. 
From that time to the close of his faithful toils we often met, and enjoyed together 
the most pleasant and familiar interviews. During this. time, too, I distinctly remem- 
ber that he often spoke of Mrs. Palmer, and of the seasons of spiritual refreshment 
he had enjoyed at her house. Having never attended myself any of the meetings 
at Mrs. P.'s, he recommended me to do so ; and he always referred to her in a man- 
ner that left the impression on my mind that he esteemed her highly as an eminently 
pious and useful woman. I shall never forget, in particular, a conversation I had 
with Brother Creagh on experimental piety, a few days before he started to attend 
the General Conference in Boston ; and as the letters in the Advocate by Dr. Bangs 
and Professor Mattison were alluded to, and Mrs. Palmer in connection with them, 
he declared again his full confidence in her, and his high appreciation of her integ- 
rity and usefulness. I would say, too, that he did this again at the session of our 
own Conference in Hartford, shortly after the General Conference, and under circum- 
stances, which those who attended the Conference can recall, calculated to impress 
his remarks on my memory.* From all then that I know of the sainted Creagh, and 
heard from his own lips, I feel confident that Professor Mattison is mistaken in re- 
gard to this one point, and that he has unintentionally given magnitude to an unim- 
portant occurrence. 

"In conclusion, I ought also to say, that in all my interviews with Brother Creagh, 
when Professor Mattison himself was mentioned, it was always wrch obvious confi- 
dence and respect ; and thus I have the impression that while this holy man was 
aware of his (Prof. M.'s) dissent from Mrs. Palmer, in some of the precise aspects of 
her opinions, he ascribed to them both sincerity of purpose, and cherished them as 
Christian friends. Tours truly, S. W. Law." 

I shall limit myself, on the present occasion, to the publication of a single 
additional communication on this point. It is written by Chauncey Shaffer, 
Esq., an eminent member of the bar in this city, and a local preacher in our 
Church. 

LETTER FROM CHAUNCEY SHAFFER, ESQ. 

" New- York, March 31s*, 1856. 

"Rev. Dr. Perry: 

" My Dear Sir : Observing that the circumstances connected with the removal of 
Dr. and Mrs. Palmer from the Alien street to the Norfolk street Church have be- 
come a topic in controversy between yourself and Professor Mattison, I think it my 
duty to furnish you with some facts which may tend to place that matter in its true 
light. I am persuaded that this affair is very greatly exaggerated, and not a little 
misrepresented. No such ill feeling as is implied, if not distinctly charged, ever 
existed between Brother Creagh and Dr. and Mrs. Palmer. 

" 1. The reason of the removal of Dr. and Mrs. Palmer from Allen street to the 
Norfolk street Church was the great need of laborers at Norfolk street. The Mace- 

"* I might add, also, as indicating how truly Mrs. Palmer reciprocated this kindness of feeling, 
that the family with whom Brother Creagh tarried during the Conference, requested the pleasure 
of entertaining him through the suggestion of Mrs. P., they not being members of the Methodist 
Church, and having no general acquaintance with our ministers. S. W, L." 



98 



donian cry came to Allen street, and Dr. and Mrs. Palmer responded to it, by sever- 
ing their church relation with that church, and removing to Norfolk street. Rev. 
Julius Field, then pastor of the latter named church, in my presence, invited and 
urged them to ' come over to Norfolk street and help ' them, and he, at the 
same time, earnestly invited me and my wife also to take a transfer from Allen 
street, and cast in our lot with them. We consulted with Brother Creagh in rela- 
tion to the matter, and concluded to postpone our removal until the following Con- 
ference year, when we also left the Allen street Church and joined the Norfolk 
street Church. It may be well to add, in view of certain allusions that have been 
made, that on the occasion of my consulting Brother Creagh about the removal of 
myself and wife, he stated that he very much regretted the loss of Dr. and Mrs. 
Palmer from Allen street, but that he felt assured they had gone in the true mis- 
sionary spirit 

" 2. The series of discourses referred to by Professor Mattison were preached by 
Brother Creagh after Dr. Palmer and Mrs. Palmer had removed from the Allen street 
Church, of my own knowledge. I heard all of those discourses delivered, and being 
interested in them, conversed about them with Brother Creagh and Dr. and Mrs. 
Palmer, and others, and I can not be mistaken as to the time when they were de- 
livered. I well recollect on one occasion of suggesting to Brother Creagh, that it 
was unfortunate that he had not delivered those discourses before Dr. Palmer and 
Mrs. Palmer left, as there were some persons foolish enough to suppose that he in- 
tended certain allusions contained in them to apply to them (Dr. and Mrs. Palmer). 
This Brother Creagh emphatically disclaimed. 

"As to the subsequent intercourse between Brother Creagh and Dr. Palmer's family. 
I can only say that after their transfer, I frequently met him at Dr. Palmer's house 
(several times at tea), and discovered nothing in his conversation or manner that 
indicated any diminution of the respect and affection that he entertained for them 
while they were members of the Allen street Church. I should further state, that 
I frequently met him (Brother C.) at the Tuesday meetings at Dr. Palmer's house, 
which he was accustomed to attend down to the time of his decease. But for the 
statements made by Professor Mattison, I should never have dreamed of any es- 
trangement whatever between these parties. 

" Yery truly yours, 

"Chauxcey Shaffer. 
''Leader and Steward Bedding Church. K F." 

WHO APPROVE MRS. PALMER'S WORKS? 

I conclude this whole subject by inserting a few of the many testimonials 
in my possession of the orthodoxy and usefulness of Mrs. Palmer's works. 
In this list I give the first place to the opinions of our "Wesleyan brethren 
both in Europe and America. It may be presumed that they understand 
the faith of our common founder. 

" ' The "Way of Holiness,' with Notes by the Way. First English, from 34th 
American edition, and a short Preface by the Rev. Thomas Collins, contains a re- 
markably clear exposition of the doctrine of entire sanctification, and of the scrip- 
tural way of attaining to the experience of this inestimable blessing. The notes, 
which constitute the second part of the book, relate the experience of the writer, a 
singularly devoted American Methodist. The book has been well received in Ame- 
rica, and is well worthy of acceptance in England, where we trust it will arouse and 
instruct many to walk in this way of holiness." — Wesleyan Methodist Magazine, 
London, February, 1856. 

" ' The Way of Holiness.' By Mrs. Phcebe Palmer. London. (Heylan, 28 
Paternoster Row.) One of the best books of its class which has issued from the 
press for a long time. We envy not the feelings of the individual who can read it 
without resolving on entire dedication to God. If such books were more in vogue, 
more holiness of life would be exemplified by professed Christians."— The Wesleyan 
Methodist Association Magazine, London, February. 1856. 



99 



" 'The Way of Holiness' is pure in sentiment, correct in theology, and beautiful 
in composition. Of all that has been written on the blessed theme of entire sancti- 
fication, it is doubtful if any thing is better calculated to rouse pious desire, and 
guide the soul in its seeking." — Ladies' Repository. 

" "We recommend it as one of the best books that can be placed in the hands of 
inquirers after full salvation in Christ. It bears the stamp of no one particular sect, 
but teaches the way of holiness, in truth and love." — Oberlin Evangelist. 

" We are led to admire the common sense and judicious manner in which Mrs. 
Palmer writes on the subject of Christian perfection. This volume combines reli- 
gious experience and Bible argument. It contains enough of the former to illustrate, 
and enough of the latter to prevent its being insipid." — Christian Repository. 

" Faith and its Effects; or, Fragments from my Portfolio." By Mrs. 
Phcebe Palmer. — " This work has met with a remarkable sale, bespeaking a grow- 
ing piety in the Church, A revival of religion, on the right basis, is that which 
carries believers on to perfection. In the Methodist and other churches, such a 
revival was, perhaps, never more general than at present, and in the United States, 
and in Canada, this has, in no small degree, been promoted by Mrs. Palmer's writings. 
It is only a truism to assert that Mrs. Palmer is eminently Scriptural and Wes- 
ley an." — Christian Guardian, Canada. 

"We know of but few who have labored more, or more successfully, in promot- 
ing holiness, than the author of these ' Fragments.' It is a delightful fact, that the 
works written by her have met with a most unprecedented sale. She clearly shows 
that it is the will of God, even our sanctification ; and points out the short and good 
old way of attaining this blessing by faith, and supports all she advances, by direct 
or incidental appeals to the Word of God." — Christian Advocate and Journal. 

" In this work, such light is thrown upon the precise point of transit from con- 
demnation to favor, bondage to liberty, partial to full salvation, as is not, perhaps, 
so clearly done in any other human composition. The simplicity of faith, and 
manner of its exercise, is so logically presented, as to be unmistakable to the least 
discerning mind." — ZiorCs Herald. 

" It is calculated to instruct and interest every believer, and it seems particularly 
adapted to Sabbath-school teachers. It will greatly assist them in explaining the 
way of faith to their scholars ; and, if prayerfully read, will not fail to increase the 
work of faith with power." — Sabbath- School Advocate. 

"Present to my Christian Friend ; or, Entire Devotion to God." By Mrs. 
P. Palmer. Sixteenth edition. — "A new edition, greatly enlarged and improved. 
Though presented in a new form, with a large addition of new matter, it has no 
new doctrines to teach. A mere announcement of its appearance will be sufficient 
to lead many to supply themselves with it." — Western Christian Advocate. 

" Well worthy a place in the Christian library, or as a travelling pocket com- 
panion." — Christian Repository. 

"If public demand and extensive circulation are an evidence of value, much 
sterling value must be accorded to the book." — Christian Advocate and Journal. 

" This invaluable little work has reached its sixteenth thousand. The present edi- 
tion contains nearly double as much matter as the earlier editions. So widely is 
the beloved author of this little volume known, that any words of explanation or 
recommendation would be superfluous." — Br. D. W. Clark, Ladies' Repository. 

" We know of no work of its size comprising so much that is calculated to ar- 
rest the attention and fix the mind of the reader on the importance and attractive- 
ness of the subject of which it treats." — Rev. H. V. Degen, Guide to Holiness. 

" In size and style it is especially adapted to the young disciple, whom we would 
advise to procure and prayerfully read it. More experienced Christians, too, will 
find in it the sincere milk of the Word, 'whereby they may grow.' " — Christian 
Guardian. 



100 



"A mere announcement of its appearance will be sufficient to lead many to sup- 
ply themselves with it." — Dr. Elliott, Western Christian Advocate. 

" In this neat little volume of 192 pages, the nature of holiness is set forth, the 
way of entering into the enjoyment of it plainly pointed out, and the advantages to 
ourselves and others described." — Weekly Message. 

"Incidental Illustrations of the Economy of Salvation: Its Doctrines 
and Duties." By Mrs. Phoebe Palmer. — " These illustrations especially apply to 
experimental religion, having little to do with speculative dogmas. The sketches 
and incidents are very affecting, tendering the heart, and moving the holiest affec- 
tions of the soul. Keader, in all your getting, be sure and get this book, not for 
yourself only, but for your household." — Christian Advocate and Journal. 

" It is mainly made up of facts, all tending to one great object, holiness of heart 
and life. Many of the illustrations are beautifully simple, and told in a winning 
strain of touching eloquence. The book can not fail to do good, for the blessing of 
the .Almighty is with it." — National Magazine. 

" This is a work from the gifted and well-known pen of Mrs. Phoebe Palmer, of 
New-York. Every line throbs with the pulsations of living piety, and the sole 
object of the writer seems to be to do good. It is written in the author's peculiarly 
simple and artless style. The works of Mrs. Palmer are singular and original." — 
North- Western Christian Advocate. 

" It is got up in the neatest style of the art, and is ornamented with a likeness 
of Mrs. Palmer, beautifully executed on steel. It will, no doubt, be the most 
popular of the author's works. The articles are generally short, and furnish the 
richest variety, and are pervaded by the heavenly, unctuous spirit that characterizes 
the amiable author. There are one hundred and seventy-three topics discussed, 
illustrated, many of them, by the most thrilling incidents. The book is eminently 
practical, as well as experimental." — Northern Christian Advocate. 

" The whole is perfumed with that fragrance, and accompanied by that unction, 
which evince that the influences of the Holy Spirit have been diligently sought in 
secret, through the blood and mediation of Jesus. "Would that all of us, ministers 
and people, might have the same deep and comprehensive views of salvation — the 
zeal, the power, the success of this Deborah of Methodism!" — Rev. J. M. Leavitt, 
in Western Christian Advocate. 

" While reading its instructive pages, we could but desire our readers to enjoy, 
with us, the precious gospel truths, as here presented, illustrating the happy results 
of taking God at his wordj and receiving whatsoever is asked in faith, even the con- 
version and sanctification of many souls." — Weekly Message, Greensboro 1 , N. C. 

" Do get this book, and read it. Tet, hold! What is the state of your spiritual 
health ? Dyspeptics are very fastidious ; and lukewarm, contracted Christians are 
not fond of deeply spiritual reading. So, if you are not a seeker after all the blood- 
bought privileges of the gospel, you needn't get this book. If you are, do get it. 
It is an earnest, direct appeal, in a series of dehghtful sketches, to the converted 
Christian, to surrender his entire heart, by faith, to God. Oh ! how the woman talks ! 
God has baptized her heart with his perfect love, and she lets out, from her full 
soul, a perfect gush of thought and truth, which your faith grasps and makes 
blessed to your spirit. In little, short, rapid sentences, each with an idea in it that 
goes right home, this work tells you what you want to know about full salvation, 
in a way your heart can understand. We love such earnest books. Get one, and 
read it, if you long for full redemption." — Memphis, Arkansas and Ouachita Christian 
Advocate. 



101 



WHO CONDEMNS BOTH MRS. PALMER AND HER WORKS? 

So far as I am aware, Professor Mattison stands alone in this warfare. 
Like Mr. Benton on a memorable occasion, he may say : " Solitary and alone 
I set this ball in motion." I mean not to be understood that she has no 
other opposer, but that he is the only one to my knowledge who has pub- 
licly assailed either her or her doctrines. 

But I fear in most cases where opposition is felt, it is to the doctrine and 
practice of holiness itself, rather than to any specific views of Mrs. Palmer. 
Let this point be examined, and it may possibly be discovered, that those 
who profess to oppose Mrs. Palmer's "peculiar views" have no special affec- 
tion for that holiness of heart which she teaches and exemplifies. This is a 
point worthy of examination. If candor and impartiality could be heard 
after men have made themselves partisans, it would not be amiss to appeal 
on this point to the personal experience of Professor Mattison himself, and 
the few others among the ministry and laity who give him " aid and com- 
fort" in his merciless warfare. It would be interesting to know whether 
the Christian graces have been promoted in his heart by his labors in this 
field, r or whether he has increased his usefulness thereby. I venture to 
affirm that the most spiritually -minded of his own congregation have been 
grieved and afflicted by his course ; and that wherever a careful observation 
is taken by bishop, presiding elder, or preacher in charge, it will be found 
without exception, that both among preachers and people those who sympa- 
thize with Professor Mattison in this controversy are not those who are 
recognized as the most devoted, pious, and spiritually-minded among us. I 
very greatly fear that too many of them accord in feeling with the sentiment 
expressed recently by a prominent layman, whom I have the pleasure to 
count among my personal friends. " I hope," said he, while speaking 
approvingly of the course of Professor Mattison, " I hope that in ten years 
from this time the word sanctijication will no longer be heard among our 
people." Let those who love the doctrine of purity of heart, and adhere to 
the belief that the peculiar mission of our Church is to spread Scripture 
holiness over these lands, mark the signs of the times, and be more zealous 
than ever in vindicating both in life and conversation this precious legacy 
committed to our care by the fathers of blessed memory. 

Contrary to the established rules of controversy, and in violation of both 
good taste and an express agreement, Professor Mattison has obstinately 
persisted in dragging into this discussion, many personal matters which 
have not the remotest connection with the questions at issue between us. 

In his opening article in the Advocate, before I had written a word, save 
only to announce my acceptance of his challenge, he occupied himself in 
imputing motives to his opponent, and he declared that I wrote either to 
avenge myself upon him for expressing an unfavorable opinion upon my 
"Review" of Dr. Foster's sermon, or to secure votes for the oifice of editor 



102 



of the Christian Advocate at the next General Conference. And on this 
imputation he has rung the changes throughout the controversy. In his 
"Answer" to my "Reply" he again directly affirms that I am a candidate for 
the editorial chair of the Advocate — that I am the "favorite nominee of Dr. 
Bond for that office," etc., and he repeats directly and by implication many 
times, that I am ambitious of obtaining that post, and have engaged in 
this controversy with that object in view. Those who know me best will 
be the least likely to credit his allegations. He even intimates that for 
years past I have been laboring with this object in view. 

I speak with great reluctance and embarrassment on this subject, but 
should I maintain entire silence, though some would understand the reason, 
yet others might suppose his allegations were conceded, and Professor Mat- 
tison himself would be the first to proclaim that I had admitted the truth of 
his imputations. Now, Bishop Waugh, Dr. Durbin, and many others know 
that had my own wishes been complied with, I should not have been at the 
next General Conference at all. I should now have been buried in Africa, 
or be preaching the Gospel of Christ to the native tribes of that dark con- 
tinent. Every arrangement had been completed for four years' missionary ser- 
vice in that country, and but for circumstances to which I need not allude, I 
should now, if living, be in Africa. Does this look like selfishness or 
worldly ambition ? I boast not, God is my judge, but the Professor con- 
strains me to speak. But I am now the " favorite nominee" of Dr. Bond 
for the editorial chair of the Advocate ! Does this imply ambition on my 
part ? Allow me again to speak foolishly. The life and labors of an itiner- 
ant minister of the Methodist E. Church have more charms for me than any 
other employment on earth. However others may grow restless under our 
system, and long for such changes as may give them the opportunity of 
lingering around our large cities, and escaping the less honorable and heavier 
burdens of country toil, or of protracting their stay for longer than two 
years in wealthy and pleasant appointments, as for myself I love our system 
in these respects as it is, and desire no more honorable appointment than the 
pastorate, and no more congenial employment than is to be found in the faith- 
ful discharge of its unostentatious duties. I leave Professor Mattison to nomi- 
nate himself to the office of editor, and obtain it if he can. It may so ben- 
efit his health that he may take an effective relation in his Conference, and 
no longer stand among the worn-out and superannuated men. It is, I sup- 
pose, an evidence of " progress," that these things have come to be discussed 
in our periodicals and in pamphlets, before the session of our General Con- 
ference ; it is at least such an imitation of the practice of politicians as I am 
old-fashioned enough to disapprove and condemn. But then my taste in 
this respect may be questioned, as I am not recognized as among the ultra- 
progressionists of the day, either in Church or State. 

The Professor may make what capital he can of the fact put forward so 
offensively, that I am " the favorite nominee of Dr. Bond." It will be 
among my cherished memories in future days, that I was honored for years 
with the friendship and confidence of that great and good man. It is a 
sufficient honor to have been accounted by him worthy of his friendship, 



103 



and capable of walking in his footsteps and succeeding to his labors, and of 
this, thank God, neither Professor Mattison nor any power on earth can now 
deprive me. If, as the Professor seems to suppose, the confidence and 
friendship of Dr. Bond imply unpopularity, or if the advocacy on all proper 
occasions of the Wesleyan doctrine of sanctification through faith in Christ, 
be deemed objectionable in a Methodist preacher, I shall continue to bear 
the cross and despise the shame. The true Methodist dares to be singular 
for the sake of Christ. And I aspire to nothing more honorable than to 
proclaim successfully the glorious Gospel of the blessed God. 

This then is the conclusion of the whole matter. Professor Mattison has 
gone through a long article in the Advocate and two pamphlets, and still has 
not advanced beyond his fourth proposition. He has very feebly supported 
his first four propositions, and the last four he has totally abandoned. Will 
he retract them ? 

ASP" Note. — It is proper that the reader should be apprised that I have here 
replied to the first edition of Mr. Mattison's "Answer" Since the foregoing 
was printed, the " sober second thought " has constrained him to revise his 
pamphlet, and suppress some of its offensive parts. Whether this is the 
result of policy or the effect of shame, it is not important to inquire; it 
shows, at least, that he is not entirely insensible to the verdict of public 
censure. The day is not distant when he would be willing to make any 
sacrifice to suppress this whole controversy. The publication of the Pinck- 
ney letter, and the alleged letter of his friend at the West, was so shocking 
an exhibition of bad taste, if not of a corrupt imagination, that it is not 
surprising that he quails beneath the public contempt and indignation which 
this act has awakened. 

It will be seen that the Professor still keeps his eye on the main chance. 
If his friends S. and W. pay his printing bills, the advertisements published 
with his revised edition will make a handsome sum for his individual benefit. 

As a final resort, he reinforces his position by a number of pretended 
extracts from letters, without date, and with no clue to the names or 
residences of the alleged authors. This mode of puffing is the common 
practice of patent-medicine venders, but it can impose upon none except 
very verdant readers. If these pretended extracts are not of domestic manu- 
facture, I hope he will give us the names of the writers, as gentlemen of 
such taste and discernment ought not to hide their light under a bushel. 

It must not be overlooked, that the Professor also advertises for opinions. 
Here is a chance for distinction — let his friends not all speak at once. 



AUTHENTIC OPINIONS OF MINISTEES, 

WITH THEIR NAMES. 



To neutralize the influence of the anonymous "Opinions," published by Professor 
Mattison, I occupy what space I have left with the testimonials of ministers of po- 
sition and acknowledged piety, who have been familiar with the labors of Dr. and 
Mrs. Palmer for years past. It will be perceived that they have a " local habita- 
tion and a name." No delicacy is violated by their publication, as they are all 
copied from various religious periodicals. Should I resort to private letters, as my 
opponent professes to do, I could fill a hundred pages with testimonials of a similar 
character. 

Black Siver Conference. 

Eev. P. D. Goerie, Presiding Elder, in giving an account of the Adams District, C. M., in the 

Northern Advocate, writes thus : "The best order prevailed. There was a large number of con- 
versions. We have heard it computed at from fifty to one hundred and fifty. There were also 
some striking instances of the full baptism of the Holy G-host among both preachers and people. 
Dr. Palmer and lady, of New-York, were with us a portion of the lime, and their labors of love 
will never be forgotten. They endeared themselves to hundreds of Christian hearts, and to them, 
in part, may be attributed the success of the meeting." 

Genesee Conference. 

Rev. A. Weight, in charge of the Alexander-street Church, Rochester, writes for the columns 
of the Northern Advocate : "We are enjoying at the Alexander-street Church a glorious revival. 
* * * Dr. Palmer and his wife, from New- York, spent the Sabbath with us, greatly to 
our good and their spiritual comfort. Sister P. had come on in advance of her husband, and had 
been with us a week, and eternity will reveal the good resulting from her faithful labors in our 
midst. The work has gone on without any wild excitement. A sweet, heavenly, melting influ- 
ence characterized every meeting. The afternoon meetings were greatly blessed to the member- 
ship of the different churches who participated in them. Never did I see such a beauty in holi- 
ness, such a power in faith, as while listening to Sister P.'s modest yet impassioned descriptions 
of the privileges of the Christian Church. Dr. P. and his wife, it seems to me, are really models 
of Christian character, so simple, yet so fervent, and giving evidence of constant communion with 
God. 

New-England Conference. 

The Secretary of the Wesleyan Grove C. M., Rev. H. Vincent, writes for Zion's Herald, and 
says :. " The presence and labors, for a few days of the last of our meeting, of Dr. P., of New- York, 
and his excellent lady, Mrs. Phebe Palmer, the authoress, whose praise is in all the Churches, 
added much interest and profit to the exercises." 

Erie Conference. 

Rev. H. H. Moore : " The rich and the poor, the high and the low, the moralist and the profli- 
gate have all been the subject of Mrs. P.'s toil, and Gud has made her eminently successful in per- 
suading them to accept of salvation. Such as have only an incidental knowledge of her history 
may have concluded that sanctification is her theme, and that she engaged in no other labor. But 
her writings reveal as earnest a solicitude for the awakening and conversion 3t* sinners a§ those of 
Caughey or any other writer living or dead. So far from being devoted to the one idea of sancti- 
fication, her books give no greater prominence to that doctrine than is given to it in the Holy Scrip- 
tures." — Pittsburgh Christian Advocate. 

Wesleyan Methodist Conference, Canada. 

Rev. L. Warner, Chairman of the Guelph District, writes : " We have been accustomed to 
witness revivals of religion all our life, but have seldom if ever witnessed such manifestations of 
God's grace as during these services. * * * We were favored with a visit from Dr. 
and Mrs. P., of New- York. The ministrations, counsels, and prayers of these eminent Christians 
were of signal service to us at a most eventful period of our revival. * * * Long may 
their useful lives be spared to edify the Church and to spread scriptural holiness throughout the 
land."— Christian Guardian. 

Brampton Circuit, C. M. 

The minister in charge of the meeting, Rev. Mr. Philp. writes : " * * * We were 
favored with a visit from Dr. and Mrs. Palmer, of New-York, who did much by their conversations, 
relations of Christian experience, and addresses on the subject of Scriptural Holiness, and the ne- 
cessity of an immediate and entire dedication to God, to awake a desire for, and assist many in 
attaining that great and important blessing." — Christian Guardian. 

[See 3d page of Cover, 




• 'Soft** " O0< : r r - ■ : * A • • • J 





_ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 

' v ' • • y " Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2006 

' * °^ • i 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 1 6066 
(724)779-2111 



m 



